ReviewBest practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology2021
Prioritisation of outpatient appointments and elective surgery in gynaecology.
Review in Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology, 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to strengthen elective surgery systems during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and framework development.The British journal of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Systematic literature review on biopsychosocial factors in the surgical waiting list.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Using an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePAQ-MPH) to assess potential harm for long-waiting patients in gynaecology.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Exploring Adherence to Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Women Using Mobile Apps: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- The ongoing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on endometriosis patients: A survey of 1,089 UK patients.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
- Covid-19, pelvic health, and women's voices: A descriptive study.Continence (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a global public health concern. It has posed a multitude of challenges from managing the supply chain of personal protective equipment (PPE), reducing the spread of the virus through national restrictions, disrupting the routine delivery of healthcare services to now the race in developing novel treatments and vaccines. As the National Health Service (NHS) considers a phased restoration of non-emergency services, it is imperative to consider the high volume of patients awaiting specialist reviews and surgical procedures. Gynaecology services have to be prioritised according to the patients' clinical needs rather than their individual waiting times. In this chapter, we look at the varying aspects of prioritising non-emergency gynaecology care, including outpatient appointments and elective surgery, how innovative pathways have evolved in response to necessity, what some of the barriers have been to implement these and how this has overall impacted on individual gynaecological specialties.
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.