ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2022
Automated Reporting of Patient Outcomes in Hand Surgery: A Pilot Study.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObtaining patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is becoming a standard component of patient care. For nonacademic practices, this can be challenging. From this perspective, we designed a nearly autonomous patient outcomes reporting system. We then conducted a prospective, cohort pilot study to assess the efficacy of the system.
methodsWe created an automated system to gather PROs. All operative patients for 4 surgeons in an upper-extremity private practice were asked to participate. These patients completed the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires preoperatively and received follow-up e-mails requesting patients to complete additional QuickDASH questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and to complete a 13-week postoperative satisfaction survey. Response rates and satisfaction levels are reported with descriptive statistics.
resultsSixty-two percent of participants completed the 3-week assessment, 55% completed the 6-week assessment, and 43% completed the 12-week assessment. Overall, 35% of patients completed all questionnaires, and 73% completed at least 1 postoperative assessment. The collection of follow-up questionnaires required no additional time from the clinical staff, surgeon, or a research associate.
conclusionsAutomated e-mail assessments can collect reliable clinical data, with minimal surgeon or staff intervention required to administer and collect data, minimizing the financial cost. For nonacademic practices, without access to additional research resources, such a system is feasible. Further improvements in communication with patients could increase response rates.
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.