Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34608588›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2021

A systematic scoping review of published qualitative research pertaining to the field of perioperative anesthesiology.

Mia Gisselbaek, Patricia Hudelson, Georges L Savoldelli

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mia GisselbaekDivision of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. Mia.Gisselbaek@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-8106
Patricia HudelsonDepartment of Primary Care, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Georges L SavoldelliDivision of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQualitative research (QR) take advantage of a wide range of methods and theoretical frameworks to explore people's beliefs, perspectives, experiences, and behaviours and has been applied to many areas of healthcare. The aim of this review was to explore how QR has contributed to the field of perioperative anesthesiology. SOURCE: We performed a systematic scoping review of published QR studies pertaining to the field of perioperative anesthesiology in three databases (CINAHL, Pubmed, and Embase), published between January 2000 and June 2018. We extracted data regarding publication and researchers' characteristics, main study objectives, and methodological details. Descriptive statistics were generated for each data extraction category. PRINCIPAL

findingsA total of 107 articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We identified 13 main research topics addressed by the included studies. Topics such as "patient safety," "barriers to evidence-base medicine," "patient experiences under local/regional anesthesia," "training in practice," "experiences of care," and "implementation of changes in clinical practice" were commonly tackled. Others, such as "interprofessional communication", "work environment," and "patients'/healthcare professionals' interactions" were less common. Qualitative research was often poorly reported and methodological details were frequently missing.

conclusionQualitative research has been used to explore an array of issues in perioperative anesthesiology. Some areas may benefit from further primary research, such as interprofessional communication or patient-centred care, while other areas may deserve a detailed systematic knowledge synthesis. We identified suboptimal reporting of qualitative methods and their link to study findings. Increased attention to quality criteria and reporting standards in QR is called for.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchWorkplaceanesthesiologygrounded theoryqualitative researchsystematic scoping reviewtheoretical framework

Identifiers

PMID34608588
PMCPMC8563559
OpenAlexW3204345165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.