ReviewAdvances in orthopedics2020
The Effect of Feedback on Surgeon Performance: A Narrative Review.
Review in Advances in orthopedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- An exploration into physician and surgeon data sensemaking: a qualitative systematic review using thematic synthesis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Pooled it
- Overcoming Metacognitive Bias: What Surgeons Can Learn From Athletes.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- The Apprentice Model 2.0: Enhancement of the Apprentice Model.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Utilization of a National Registry to influence opioid prescribing behavior after hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- Closing the loop: a 10-year experience with routine outcome measurements to improve treatment in hand surgery.EFORT open reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgeons play a critical role in the healthcare community and provide a service that can tremendously impact patients' livelihood. However, there are relatively few means for monitoring surgeons' performance quality and seeking improvement. Surgeon-level data provide an important metric for quality improvement and future training. A narrative review was conducted to analyze the utility of providing surgeons direct feedback on their individual performance. The articles selected identified means of collecting surgeon-specific data, suggested ways to report this information, identified pertinent gaps in the field, and concluded the results of giving feedback to surgeons. There is a relative sparsity of data pertaining to the effect of providing surgeons with information regarding their individual performance. However, the literature available does suggest that providing surgeons with individualized feedback can help make meaningful improvements in the quality of practice and can be done in a way that is safe for the surgeons' reputation.
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.