Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369179›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2020

Evaluation of Internal Medicine Physician or Multidisciplinary Team Comanagement of Surgical Patients and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Margaret Shaw, Anita M Pelecanos, Alison M Mudge

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of pre- versus postoperative geriatric consultation in elderly patients with hip fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret ShawRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Anita M PelecanosQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Alison M MudgeRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Older patients who undergo surgery may benefit from geriatrician comanagement. It is unclear whether other internal medicine (IM) physician involvement improves outcomes for adults who undergo surgery. Objective: To evaluate the association of IM physician involvement with clinical and health system outcomes compared with usual surgical care among adults who undergo surgery. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published in English from database inception to April 2, 2019. Study Selection: Prospective randomized or nonrandomized clinical studies comparing IM physician consultation or comanagement with usual surgical care were selected by consensus of 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline by 2 authors independently. Intervention characteristics were described using existing indicators. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tools. Studies were pooled when appropriate in meta-analysis using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroups included IM physician-only vs multidisciplinary team interventions and patients undergoing elective vs emergency procedures. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was length of stay; other outcomes included 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, medical complications, functional outcomes, and costs. Results: Of 6027 records screened, 14 studies (with 1 randomized clinical trial) involving 35 800 patients (13 142 [36.7%] in intervention groups) were eligible for inclusion. Interventions varied substantially among studies and settings; most interventions described comanagement by a hospitalist or internist; 7 (50%) included a multidisciplinary team, and 9 (64%) studied predominantly patients who had elective procedures. Risk of bias in 10 studies (71%) was serious. Meta-analysis showed no significant association with length of stay (mean difference, -1.02 days; 95% CI, -2.09 to 0.04 days; P = .06) or mortality (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.11; P = .18), but multidisciplinary team involvement was associated with significant reduction in length of stay (mean difference, -2.03 days; 95% CI, -4.05 to -0.01 days; P = .05) and mortality (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16; P = .39). Data could not be pooled for complications or costs. Only 1 study (7%) reported functional outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that IM physician comanagement that includes multidisciplinary team involvement may be associated with reduced length of stay and mortality in adults undergoing surgery. Evidence was low quality, and well-designed prospective studies are still needed.

Indexed as

Elective Surgical ProceduresHospitalistsPatient Care TeamHumansLength of StayOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Readmission

Identifiers

PMID32369179
PMCPMC7201311
OpenAlexW3023153579

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.