Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457616›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2020

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient.

Victoria R Rendell, Alexander B Siy, Linda M Cherney Stafford, Ryan K Schmocker, Glen E Leverson, Emily R Winslow

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The patient perspective on colorectal anastomotic leaks: A qualitative study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient-centred outcomes.BJA education · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Victoria R RendellDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4222-2010
Alexander B SiyDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Linda M Cherney StaffordDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Ryan K SchmockerDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Glen E LeversonDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Emily R WinslowDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Schmocker is now with the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Winslow is now with the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough provider-derived surgical complication severity grading systems exist, little is known about the patient perspective.

objectiveTo assess patient-rated complication severity and determine concordance with existing grading systems.

methodsA survey asked general surgery patients to rate the severity of 21 hypothetical postoperative events representing grades 1 to 5 complications from the Accordion Severity Grading System. Concordance with the Accordion scale was examined. Separately, descriptive ratings of 18 brief postoperative events were ranked.

resultsOne hundred sixty-eight patients returned a mailed survey following their discharge from a general surgery service. Patients rated grade 4 complications highest. Grade 1 complications were rated similarly to grade 5 and higher than grades 2 and 3 (

conclusionPatient-rated complication severity is discordant with provider-derived grading systems, suggesting the need to explore important differences between patient and provider perspectives.

Indexed as

communicationpatient expectationspatient perspectives/narrativesquantitative methodssurvey data

Identifiers

PMID33457616
PMCPMC7786740

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.