SynthesisBJS open2021
Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes following discharge after surgery: systematic review.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digitally supported shared decision-making and treat-to-target in rheumatology: a qualitative study embedded in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Rheumatology international · 2023Trial
- An Evidence-Based Framework for Patient-Facing Artificial Intelligence Integration in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Mixed-Methods User-Centered Design Evaluation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes System to Enhance Postdischarge Care for Thoracic Surgery Patients.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Enhancing the User Experience of a Perioperative Digital Health Tool for Information Exchange Using a Human-Centered Design Thinking Approach: Qualitative Observational Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2026Observational
- Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Risk Prediction Model Development to Support Cancer Care Delivery: A Scoping Review.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Remote Symptom Monitoring with Clinical Alerts Following Mastectomy: Do Early Symptoms Predict 30-Day Surgical Complications.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Mobile Postoperative Symptom Intervention Tool and Biometric Monitoring After Radical Cystectomy: Pilot Study Evaluating Feasibility, Usability, and Potential Utility.The Journal of urology · 2023Article
- Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the electronic collection and clinical feedback of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) following surgical discharge. This systematic review summarized the evidence on the collection and uses of electronic systems to collect PROs after discharge from hospital after surgery.
methodSystematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central were undertaken from database inception to July 2019 using terms for 'patient reported outcomes', 'electronic', 'surgery' and 'at home'. Primary research of all study designs was included if they used electronic systems to collect PRO data in adults after hospital discharge following surgery. Data were collected on the settings, patient groups and specialties, ePRO systems (including features and functions), PRO data collected, and integration with health records.
resultsFourteen studies were included from 9474 records, including two RCTs and six orthopaedic surgery studies. Most studies (9 of 14) used commercial ePRO systems. Six reported types of electronic device were used: tablets or other portable devices (3 studies), smartphones (2), combination of smartphones, tablets, portable devices and computers (1). Systems had limited features and functions such as real-time clinical feedback (6 studies) and messaging service for patients with care teams (3). No study described ePRO system integration with electronic health records to support clinical feedback.
conclusionThere is limited reporting of ePRO systems in the surgical literature, and ePRO systems lack integration with hospital clinical systems. Future research should describe the ePRO system and ePRO questionnaires used, and challenges encountered during the study, to support efficient upscaling of ePRO systems using tried and tested approaches.
Indexed as
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.