Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34795398›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2021

Remote diagnosis of surgical-site infection using a mobile digital intervention: a randomised controlled trial in emergency surgery patients.

Kenneth A McLean, Katie E Mountain, Catherine A Shaw, Thomas M Drake, Riinu Pius, Stephen R Knight, Cameron J Fairfield, Alessandro Sgrò, Matt Bouamrane, William A Cambridge and 7 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02704897 nacompletednot on this map

Can a Smartphone-delivered Tool Facilitate the Assessment of Surgical Site Infection, and Result in Earlier Treatment? A Randomized-controlled Trial in Emergency Surgery Patients.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2016 to 2020Enrolled492ConditionsSurgical Site InfectionArmsWound Assessment Tool
NCT07205939 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Remote Assessment of the Permanent Site After Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSibel Bulut HaklıRan2025 to 2026Enrolled216ConditionsSurgical Infection, Cesarean Section WoundArmsMobile Application usage
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kenneth A McLeanDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-9086
Katie E MountainDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Catherine A ShawDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Thomas M DrakeDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Riinu PiusDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Stephen R KnightDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0448-3719
Cameron J FairfieldDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Alessandro SgròDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-8342
Matt BouamraneCentre for Medical Informatics (CMI), Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 9 Little France Rd, Edinburgh, UK.
William A CambridgeDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Mathew LyonsDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8062-0685
Aya RiadDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Richard J E SkipworthDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Stephen J WigmoreDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.
Mark A PotterDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-7515
Ewen M HarrisonDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK. ewen.harrison@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5018-3066
TWIST Collaborators
University of Edinburgh · GBWestern General Hospital · GBThe Queen's Medical Research Institute · GB

Funding

University of Edinburgh N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical site infections (SSI) cause substantial morbidity and pose a burden to acute healthcare services after surgery. We aimed to investigate whether a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool can expedite diagnosis and treatment of SSI after emergency abdominal surgery. This single-blinded randomised control trial (NCT02704897) enroled adult emergency abdominal surgery patients in two tertiary care hospitals. Patients were randomised (1:1) to routine postoperative care or additional access to a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patient-reported SSI symptoms and wound photographs were requested on postoperative days 3, 7, and 15. The primary outcome was time-to-diagnosis of SSI (Centers for Disease Control definition). 492 patients were randomised (smartphone intervention: 223; routine care: 269). There was no significant difference in the 30-day SSI rate between trial arms: 21 (9.4%) in smartphone vs 20 (7.4%, p = 0.513) in routine care. Among the smartphone group, 32.3% (n = 72) did not utilise the tool. There was no significant difference in time-to-diagnosis of SSI for patients receiving the intervention (-2.5 days, 95% CI: -6.6-1.6, p = 0.225). However, patients in the smartphone group had 3.7-times higher odds of diagnosis within 7 postoperative days (95% CI: 1.02-13.51, p = 0.043). The smartphone group had significantly reduced community care attendance (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94, p = 0.030), similar hospital attendance (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.28-1.96, p = 0.577), and significantly better experiences in accessing care (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.17-3.53, p = 0.013). Smartphone-delivered wound follow-up is feasible following emergency abdominal surgery. This can facilitate triage to the appropriate level of assessment required, allowing earlier postoperative diagnosis of SSI.

Identifiers

PMID34795398
PMCPMC8602321
OpenAlexW3214452440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.