Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33404791›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical systems2021

A Randomized Trial of Manual Phone Calls Versus Automated Text Messages for Peripheral Nerve Block Follow-Ups.

Gavyn Ooi, Eric S Schwenk, Marc C Torjman, Kent Berg

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07510425 (Postoperative Follow-up Via Artificial Intelligence-Based Application Versus Automated Messaging Application in Patients Receiving Continuous Regional Analgesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT07510425 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Postoperative Follow-up Via Artificial Intelligence-Based Application Versus Automated Messaging Application in Patients Receiving Continuous Regional Analgesia: A Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2026 to 2027Enrolled166ConditionsAnesthesia, Anesthesia , Analgesia, Regional Anesthesia, Regional Anesthesia SuccessArmsAI-driven follow-up platform, Satisfaction, Adherence to the follow-up protocol, Response rates from postoperative days one through three
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gavyn OoiSidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eric S SchwenkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Marc C TorjmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kent BergDepartment of Anesthesiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. kent.berg@jefferson.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9640-4151
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · USThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

Jeffrey Joseph, DO n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile phone applications (apps) have been used for patient follow-up in the postoperative period, specifically to assess for complications and patient satisfaction. Few studies have evaluated their use in regional anesthesia. The objective of this study was to compare follow-up response rates using manual phone calls versus an automated patient outreach (APO) app for peripheral nerve block patients. We hypothesized that the response rate would be higher in the APO group. A mobile app, "JeffAnesthesia," was developed, which sends notifications to patients to answer survey questions in the app. We randomly assigned patients who received peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain to either a manual phone call or an APO app group, with follow-up in each category occurring between postoperative days (POD) 14-21 and 90-100. In total, 60 patients were assigned to the phone call group and 60 patients to the APO app group. Between POD 14-21, 9 (15%) patients were reached in the manual phone call arm, and 16 (26.7%) patients were reached in the APO arm (p = 0.117). At POD 90-100, follow-up was successful with 5 (8.2%) in the manual phone call group vs. 3 (5.0%) patients in the APO app group (p = 0.300). Overall response rate was poor, with comparable response rates between groups. The APO method may reduce time spent by anesthesia staff on follow-up calls, but our data do not suggest this method improves response rates significantly. Further studies are needed to better understand the reasons for the poor response rate and strategies for improvement.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ConductionCell PhoneText MessagingFollow-Up StudiesHumansPeripheral NervesAnesthesiologyAutomated surveyFollow-upMobile appRandomizedRegional

Identifiers

PMID33404791
OpenAlexW3120312317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.