ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2020
Presurgical Psychological Evaluation: Risk Factor Identification and Mitigation.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Getting to the bottom of it: Comparative medical and psychological risk for gonadectomy among individuals with and without presurgical psychological assessment.International journal of transgender health · 2026Article
- Incremental Contribution of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 3 to Predicting One-Year Postoperative Spinal Cord Surgery/Spinal Cord Stimulation Outcomes.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presurgical psychological evaluations (PPEs) are becoming an established component of the surgical process, though methods of conducting PPEs are variable. There is a lack of clarity about the goals of PPEs, the types of information that should be included, and the process for integrating information and making recommendations to the referring physicians/surgeons. This review proposes an empirically supported model for PPEs that is systematic, but flexible enough to be utilized across the broad range of surgical evaluations. This five-step method is termed the Risk Identification and Mitigation (RIM) model and is discussed in detail. The RIM model presented in this review can both serve as a structure to be utilized in under-researched PPE areas and as a stimulus for future empirical investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31473887What OpenQuestion holds
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.