Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30422236›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2019

Evaluation of Wound Photography for Remote Postoperative Assessment of Surgical Site Infections.

Kristy Kummerow Broman, Cameron E Gaskill, Adil Faqih, Michael Feng, Sharon E Phillips, William B Lober, Richard A Pierce, Michael D Holzman, Heather L Evans, Benjamin K Poulose

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kristy Kummerow BromanDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Cameron E GaskillDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Adil FaqihDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Michael FengDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sharon E PhillipsDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
William B LoberDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Richard A PierceDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Michael D HolzmanDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Heather L EvansDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Benjamin K PouloseDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Surgeons are increasingly interested in using mobile and online applications with wound photography to monitor patients after surgery. Early work using remote care to diagnose surgical site infections (SSIs) demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy using wound photographs to augment patients' electronic reports of symptoms, but it is unclear whether these findings are reproducible in real-world practice. Objective: To determine how wound photography affects surgeons' abilities to diagnose SSIs in a pragmatic setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study compared surgeons' paired assessments of postabdominal surgery case vignettes with vs without wound photography for detection of SSIs. Data for case vignettes were collected prospectively from May 1, 2007, to January 31, 2009, at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and from July 1, 2015, to February 29, 2016, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. The surgeons were members of the American Medical Association whose self-designated specialty is general, abdominal, colorectal, oncologic, or vascular surgery and who completed internet-based assessments from May 21 to June 10, 2016. Intervention: Surgeons reviewed online clinical vignettes with or without wound photography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surgeons' diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, confidence, and proposed management with respect to SSIs. Results: A total of 523 surgeons (113 women and 410 men; mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years) completed a mean of 2.9 clinical vignettes. For the diagnosis of SSIs, the addition of wound photography did not change accuracy (863 of 1512 [57.1%] without and 878 of 1512 [58.1%] with photographs). Photographs decreased sensitivity (from 0.58 to 0.50) but increased specificity (from 0.56 to 0.63). In 415 of 1512 cases (27.4%), the addition of wound photography changed the surgeons' assessment (215 of 1512 [14.2%] changed from incorrect to correct and 200 of 1512 [13.2%] changed from correct to incorrect). Surgeons reported greater confidence when vignettes included a wound photograph compared with vignettes without a wound photograph, regardless of whether they correctly identified an SSI (median, 8 [interquartile range, 6-9] vs median, 8 [interquartile range, 7-9]; P < .001) but they were more likely to undertriage patients when vignettes included a wound photograph, regardless of whether they correctly identified an SSI. Conclusions and Relevance: In a practical simulation, wound photography increased specificity and surgeon confidence, but worsened sensitivity for detection of SSIs. Remote evaluation of patient-generated wound photographs may not accurately reflect the clinical state of surgical incisions. Effective widespread implementation of remote postoperative assessment with photography may require additional development of tools, participant training, and mechanisms to verify image quality.

Indexed as

PhotographyClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsProspective StudiesRemote ConsultationSensitivity and SpecificitySurgeonsSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID30422236
PMCPMC6439665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.