ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2022
Risk taking propensity: Nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for diverting ileostomy.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning model-guided selective use of temporary diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Drain fluid iodine as a biomarker of anastomotic leak after low anterior resection in patients undergoing Gastrografin rectal tube flushes and omission of a diverting ileostomy: The GUSH study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Observational
- Risk taking propensity: Nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for diverting ileostomy.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe decision-making process to defunction a pelvic colorectal anastomosis involves complex heuristics and is framed by surgeon personality factors. Risk taking propensity may be an important factor in these decisions and patient preferences have not been evaluated alongside surgeons and nurses.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study involving a one-off interview and questionnaire assessing how risk taking propensity affects nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for a temporary defunctioning ileostomy (TDI) was performed. The risk taking index (RTI) was employed to evaluate risk taking propensity and the validated prospective measures of preference instruments to evaluate preferences for stoma avoidance in several scenarios by asking the individual to consider trading or gambling years of remaining life expectancy.
resultsOne hundred and fifty participants met the inclusion criteria, which included 30 (20.0%) surgical nurses, 20 (13.3%) colorectal surgeons and 100 (66.7%) patients. Surgeons had a significantly higher RTI (mean ± SD: 26.8 ± 6.7) than patients (mean ± SD: 20.0 ± 9.8) and nurses (mean ± SD: 23.0 ± 6.6) p = 0.002. Surgeons would consider that it would be in a patient's best interest to have a TDI at an AL rate of 15% or greater, whereas nurses and patients would do so at 28% and 25%, respectively (p = 0.007).
conclusionSurgeons were shown to have a higher risk taking propensity than patients and nurses but a significantly lower threshold of AL where they would consider a TDI is in the best interest of the patient.
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.