Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33095834›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Surgery for non-Covid-19 patients during the pandemic.

Martin Hübner, Tobias Zingg, David Martin, Philippe Eckert, Nicolas Demartines

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Development of Telemedicine and eHealth in Surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Surgical safety in the COVID-19 era: present and future considerations.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin HübnerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Tobias ZinggDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
David MartinDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1585-5231
Philippe EckertHospital direction, University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas DemartinesDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, mainly data related to the burden of care required by infected patients were reported. The aim of this study was to illustrate the timeline of actions taken and to measure and analyze their impact on surgical patients.

methodThis is a retrospective review of actions to limit Covid-19 spread and their impact on surgical activity in a Swiss tertiary referral center. Data on patient care, human resources and hospital logistics were collected. Impact on surgical activity was measured by comparing 6-week periods before and after the first measures were taken.

resultsAfter the first Swiss Covid-19 case appeared on February 25, progressively restrictive measures were taken over a period of 23 days. Covid-19 positive inpatients increased from 5 to 131, and ICU patients from 2 to 31, between days 10 and 30, respectively, without ever overloading resources. A 43% decrease of elective visceral surgical procedures was observed after Covid-19 (295 vs 165, p<0.01), while the urgent operations (all specialties) decreased by 39% (1476 vs 897, p<0.01). Fifty-two and 38 major oncological surgeries were performed, respectively, representing a 27% decrease (p = 0.316). Outpatient consultations dropped by 59%, from 728 to 296 (p<0.01).

conclusionWhile allowing for maximal care of Covid-19 patients during the pandemic, the shift of resources limited the access to elective surgical care, with less impact on cancer care.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Elective Surgical ProceduresHealth Care RationingHealth WorkforceHospitalizationHumansIntensive Care UnitsNeoplasmsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPolymerase Chain ReactionReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33095834
PMCPMC7584248
OpenAlexW3093846884

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.