Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30937619›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Harry C Alexander, Cindy H Nguyen, Matthew R Moore, Adam S Bartlett, Jacqueline A Hannam, Garth H Poole, Alan F Merry

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Harry C AlexanderDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0243-6065
Cindy H NguyenDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Matthew R MooreDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Adam S BartlettDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jacqueline A HannamDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Garth H PooleDepartment of Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Alan F MerryDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. a.merry@auckland.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted.

resultsA total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them.

conclusionsConsiderable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGallbladder DiseasesHumansPain MeasurementPostoperative PainCholecystectomyLaparoscopicOutcomeSurgery

Identifiers

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.