Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30620075›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2019

Systematic review of the use of big data to improve surgery in low- and middle-income countries.

S R Knight, R Ots, M Maimbo, T M Drake, C J Fairfield, E M Harrison

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact of the internet on veterinary surgery.Veterinary and animal science · 2021
    Review
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

6 authors.

S R KnightSurgical Informatics, Centre for Medical Informatics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0448-3719
R OtsSurgical Informatics, Centre for Medical Informatics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8738-4902
M MaimboDepartment of General Surgery, Kitwe Teaching Hospital, Kitwe, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0001-7673-7701
T M DrakeSurgical Informatics, Centre for Medical Informatics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9334-6494
C J FairfieldSurgical Informatics, Centre for Medical Informatics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7635-1868
E M HarrisonSurgical Informatics, Centre for Medical Informatics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5018-3066

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advances have led to the generation of large amounts of data, both in surgical research and practice. Despite this, it is unclear how much originates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and what barriers exist to the use of such data in improving surgical care. The aim of this review was to capture the extent and impact of programmes that use large volumes of patient data on surgical care in LMICs.

methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar was performed in August 2018. Prospective studies collecting large volumes of patient-level data within LMIC settings were included and evaluated qualitatively.

resultsA total of 68 studies were included from 71 LMICs, involving 708 032 patients. The number of patients in included studies varied widely (from 335 to 428 346), with 25 reporting data on 3000 or more LMIC patients. Patient inclusion in large-data studies in LMICs has increased dramatically since 2015. Studies predominantly involved Brazil, China, India and Thailand, with low patient numbers from Africa and Latin America. Outcomes after surgery were commonly the focus (33 studies); very few large studies looked at access to surgical care or patient expenditure. The use of large data sets specifically to improve surgical outcomes in LMICs is currently limited.

conclusionLarge volumes of data are becoming more common and provide a strong foundation for continuing investigation. Future studies should address questions more specific to surgery.

Indexed as

Big DataDeveloping CountriesGeneral SurgeryHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID30620075
PMCPMC6590290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.