Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33782708›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2021

Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes following discharge after surgery: systematic review.

C Tsang, K S Lee, H Richards, J M Blazeby, K N L Avery

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C TsangBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
K S LeeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
H RichardsBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J M BlazebyBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
K N L AveryBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Monitoring, AmbulatoryPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTelemedicineEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFeedbackHumansPatient DischargeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33782708
PMCPMC8007587
OpenAlexW3149805362

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.