Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33497408›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

One-month recovery profile and prevalence and predictors of quality of recovery after painful day case surgery: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Björn Stessel, Maarten Hendrickx, Caroline Pelckmans, Gerrit De Wachter, Bart Appeltans, Geert Braeken, Jeroen Herbots, Elbert Joosten, Marc Van de Velde, Wolfgang F F A Buhre

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

10 authors.

Björn StesselDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1422-2777
Maarten HendrickxDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Caroline PelckmansDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Gerrit De WachterDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Bart AppeltansDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Geert BraekenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Jeroen HerbotsDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
Elbert JoostenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marc Van de VeldeDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.
Wolfgang F F A BuhreDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesThis study aimed to study one-month recovery profile and to identify predictors of Quality of Recovery (QOR) after painful day surgery and investigate the influence of pain therapy on QOR. METHODS/

designThis is a secondary analysis of a single-centre, randomised controlled trial of 200 patients undergoing ambulatory haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair between January 2016 and March 2017. Primary endpoints were one-month recovery profile and prevalence of poor/good QOR measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the Global Surgical Recovery index and the EuroQol questionnaire at postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4, 7, 14 and 28. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of QOR at POD 7, 14, and 28. Differences in QOR between pain treatment groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

resultsFour weeks after haemorrhoid surgery, inguinal hernia repair, arthroscopic knee and arthroscopic shoulder surgery, good QOR was present in 71%, 76%, 57% and 24% respectively. Poor QOR was present in 5%, 0%, 7% and 29%, respectively. At POD 7 and POD 28, predictors for poor/intermediate QOR were type of surgery and a high postoperative pain level at POD 4. Male gender was another predictor at POD 7. Female gender and having a paid job were also predictors at POD 28. Type of surgery and long term fear of surgery were predictors at POD 14. No significant differences in total FRI scores were found between the two different pain treatment groups.

conclusionsThe present study shows a procedure-specific variation in recovery profile in the 4-week period after painful day surgery. The best predictors for short-term (POD 7) and long-term (POD 28) poor/intermediate QOR were a high postoperative pain level at POD 4 and type of surgery. Different pain treatment regimens did not result in differences in recovery profile.

trial registrationEuropean Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID33497408
PMCPMC7837485

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.