Trial reportSurgery today2021
Postoperative inguinal pain and disability after Lichtenstein versus ONSTEP hernia repair: analysis of responses to the inguinal pain questionnaire in Spanish.
Trial report in Surgery today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04138329 (Comparison of Postoperative Inguinal Pain Between the Onstep Technique and the Lichtenstein Technique), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of Postoperative Inguinal Pain Between the Onstep Technique and the Lichtenstein Technique: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Results from patient-reported outcome measures are inconsistently reported in inguinal hernia trials: a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Definition of Mesh Weight and Pore Size in Groin Hernia Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2023Article
- Validation of the Simplified Inguinal Pain Questionnaire for assessing postoperative pain and disability following hernioplasty.Surgery today · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the Inguinal Pain Questionnaire (IPQ) in the Spanish Language and test its use in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of hernia repair using the Lichtenstein technique vs. the ONSTEP technique. We simplified the IPQ using a principal component analysis (PCA) approach as a secondary objective.
methodsThe IPQ was translated into Spanish and validated in a cohort of 21 patients. Thereafter, 40 patients were randomized to undergo hernia repair by the Lichtenstein technique or the ONSTEP technique. IPQ and pain visual analogue (VAS) score trends over time were compared using a repeated-measures mixed-effects model.
resultsThe Spanish version of the IPQ showed an internal consistency similar to that of the original score. No significant differences were found in the IPQ responses, pain VAS, or the rate of self-reported pain between patients who underwent the Lichtenstein technique and those who underwent the ONSTEP technique. Following PCA analysis, the number of items on the IPQ was reduced from 18 to 10.
conclusionsThe Spanish version of the IPQ measures postoperative inguinal pain adequately. Based on our findings, the ONSTEP technique was not superior to the Lichtenstein technique. The simplified version of the IPQ is not significantly different from the full version and it is easier to complete. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT04138329, registered on October 24, 2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.