Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30783704›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2019

Outpatient visits versus telephone interviews for postoperative care: a randomized controlled trial.

Jennifer C Thompson, Sara B Cichowski, Rebecca G Rogers, Fares Qeadan, Julissa Zambrano, Cynthia Wenzl, Peter C Jeppson, Gena C Dunivan, Yuko M Komesu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02891187 (Outpatient Visits Versus Telephone Interviews for Postoperative Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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.

NCT02891187 nacompletednot on this map

Outpatient Visits Versus Telephone Interviews for Postoperative Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of New MexicoRan2016 to 2018Enrolled120ConditionsSatisfaction, Postoperative Complications, Pelvic Floor DisorderArmsTelephone follow-up, Outpatient Clinic Visits
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Telenursing in the postoperative period: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Implementing telemedicine in urogynecology: A feasibility study.International urogynecology journal · 2023
    Observational
  16. Patient satisfaction with follow-up after spinal fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patient Acceptance of Telemedicine in Urogynecology Consultations - A Cross-Sectional Study Performed at a Brazilian Public Institution.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jennifer C ThompsonUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.
Sara B CichowskiUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA. scichowski@salud.unm.edu.
Rebecca G RogersDell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Fares QeadanUniversity of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Julissa ZambranoUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.
Cynthia WenzlUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.
Peter C JeppsonUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.
Gena C DunivanUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.
Yuko M KomesuUniversity of New Mexico Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, 2211 Lomas Blvd. NE, ACC-4th Floor, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.

Funding

UNM HSC Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001449 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI CAMPEN, MATTHEW J, PANDHI, NANCY · 2015 to 2024
$36.9M
University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000041 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI LARSON, RICHARD S · 2012 to 2014
$9.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000041NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001449University of New Mexico UL1TR001449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to determine whether postoperative telephone follow-up was noninferior to in-person clinic visits based on patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were safety and clinical outcomes.

methodsWomen scheduled for pelvic surgery were recruited from a single academic institution and randomized to clinic or telephone follow-up. The clinic group returned for visits 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and the telephone group received a call from a nurse at the same time intervals. Women completed the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey (S-CAHPS) questionnaire, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20, and pain scales prior to and 3 months postoperatively. Randomized patients who completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months were included for analysis. Sample size calculations, based on a 15% noninferiority limit in the S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating, required 100 participants, with power = 80% and alpha = 0.025.

resultsFrom October 2016 to November 2017, 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, were randomized, and included in the final analysis (clinic group n = 50, telephone group n = 50). Mean age was 58.5 ± 12.2 years. Demographic data and surgery type, dichotomized into outpatient and inpatient, did not differ between groups. The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was noninferior to the clinic group (92 vs 88%, respectively, rated their surgeons 9 and10, with a noninferiority limit of 36.1; p = 0.006). Adverse events did not differ between groups (n = 26; 57% fclinic vs 43% telephone; p = 0.36). Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits. Clinical outcome measures improved in both groups, with no differences (all p > 0.05).

conclusionsTelephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in noninferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events. Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care. CLINICAL

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02891187.

Indexed as

TelerehabilitationAgedFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPelvic Floor DisordersPostoperative CarePatient satisfactionPostoperative careTelephone visits

Identifiers

PMID30783704
PMCPMC6699921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.