Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33201514›Full record

ReviewAnaesthesia2021

Routinely collected data and patient-centred research in anaesthesia and peri-operative care: a narrative review.

R A Armstrong, R Mouton, R J Hinchliffe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the Administration of General Anesthesia.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

R A ArmstrongSevern Deanery, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9479-0143
R MoutonDepartment of Anaesthesia, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9562-8199
R J HinchliffeBristol Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6370-0800

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard in clinical research, but remain rare due to their expense and a perceived lack of 'real-world' applicability. At the same time, there has been an exponential increase in routinely collected data which presents opportunities for audit, quality improvement, adverse event reporting and more efficient clinical research. Registry-based research benefits from reduced cost, large sample size and real-world applicability, with methodological developments, particularly registry-based randomised controlled trials and causal inference techniques, showing promise. Limitations include data quality and validity, the need for data linkage, the restrictions of fixed data fields, regulatory barriers, and privacy and security concerns. However, the principal factor hampering current efforts is a lack of anaesthesia-specific datasets in the UK and the fact that most surgical registries do not collect any anaesthetic data. This presents an opportunity for anaesthetists, through enhanced engagement and collaboration, to influence and improve the design of these datasets and increase the value and volume of data collected. Better datasets, coupled with a growing appreciation of new analysis methodologies, would allow significant progress towards realising the potential of routinely collected data for patient benefit. At the same time, work should begin on the development of a minimum dataset for anaesthesia to underpin new data sharing networks and, ideally, a national registry of anaesthesia.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentRegistriesRoutinely Collected Health DataAnesthesiaHumansPerioperative Careelectronic health recordsperi-operative clinical trialsregistriesregistry trialsroutinely collected health data

Identifiers

PMID33201514
PMCPMC8359324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.