Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29212492›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2017

Using patient data to optimize an expert-based guideline on convalescence recommendations after gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study.

Esther V A Bouwsma, Johannes R Anema, A Vonk Noordegraaf, Henrica C W de Vet, Judith A F Huirne

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04897061 (Impact of Home Support on Quality of Post-operative Recovery After Major Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04897061 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Home Support on Quality of Post-operative Recovery After Major Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

TypeobservationalSponsorIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiRan2021 to 2022Enrolled103ConditionsPelvic Organ Prolapse
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Esther V A BouwsmaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007, MB, The Netherlands. ev.bouwsma@vumc.nl.
Johannes R AnemaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A Vonk NoordegraafDepartment of General Practice, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henrica C W de VetEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith A F HuirneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007, MB, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 150020037ZonMw 171102015ZonMw 92003590
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConvalescence advice is often based on tradition and anecdote from health care providers, rather than being based on experiences from patients themselves. The aim of this study was to analyse recovery in terms of resumption of various daily activities including work, following different laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in order to optimize an expert-based guideline on convalescence recommendations.

methodsThis is a prospective cohort study conducted in nine general and one university hospital in the Netherlands. Women aged 18-65 years and scheduled for a hysterectomy (laparoscopic, vaginal, abdominal) and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery (n = 304) were eligible to participate. Preoperatively, participants were provided with tailored expert-based convalescence recommendations on the graded resumption of several daily activities including sitting, standing, walking, climbing stairs, bending, lifting, driving, cycling, household chores, sport activities and return to work (RTW). Postoperatively, time until the resumption of these activities was tracked. Convalescence recommendations were considered correct when at least 25% and less than 50% of the women were able to resume an activity before or at the recommended recovery time.

resultsThere was a wide variation in the duration until the resumption of daily activities within and between groups of patients undergoing different types of surgery. Recovery times lengthened with increasing levels of physical burden as well as with increasing levels of invasiveness of the surgery. For the majority of activities actual recovery times exceeded the recovery time recommended by the expert panel.

conclusionsThis study provided insight in the resumption of daily activities after gynecological surgery and the adequacy of an expert-based convalescence guideline in clinical practice. Patient data was used to optimize the convalescence recommendations.

trial registrationDutch trial registry, NTR2087 (August 2009) and NTR2933 (June 2011).

Indexed as

ConvalescenceAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyMiddle AgedNetherlandsPostoperative PeriodPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesConvalescence adviceeHealthhysterectomylaparoscopic adnexal surgeryreturn to normal activitiesreturn to work

Identifiers

PMID29212492
PMCPMC5719670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.