Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35481306›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

The Impact of Harm Review Service on Patients Awaiting Elective Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgery for More Than 52 Weeks.

Siddharth Virani, Oubida Asaad, Omkaar Divekar, Crispin Southgate, Baljinder S Dhinsa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Delays in Orthopaedic Care and Inferior Outcomes after Meniscus Repair in Young Patients With Medicaid versus Commercial Insurance.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  2. Earlier Orthopaedic Surgeon Evaluation of Workers' Compensation Associated With Higher Return to Full Duty After Shoulder Arthroscopy.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Siddharth ViraniTrauma and Orthopaedics, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, GBR.
Oubida AsaadTrauma and Orthopaedics, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, GBR.
Omkaar DivekarTrauma and Orthopaedics, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, GBR.
Crispin SouthgateTrauma and Orthopaedics, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, GBR.
Baljinder S DhinsaTrauma and Orthopaedics, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective There has been a significant increase in waiting times for elective surgical procedures in orthopaedic surgery as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As per the hospital policy, patients awaiting elective surgery for more than 52 weeks were offered a consultant-led harm review. The aim of this study was to objectively assess the impact of this service on the field of foot and ankle surgery. Materials and methods The data from harm review clinics at a District General Hospital related to patients waiting to undergo elective foot and ankle procedures in the year 2021 (wait time of more than 52 weeks) were assessed. Clinical data points like change in diagnosis, need for further investigations, and patients being taken off the waiting list were reviewed. The effect of the waiting time on patients' mental health and their perception of the service was assessed as well. Results A total of 72 patients awaiting foot and ankle procedures for more than 52 weeks were assessed as a part of the harm review service. It was noted that 25% of patients found that their symptoms had worsened while 66.1% perceived them to be unchanged. Twelve patients (16.9%) were sent for updated investigations. Twenty-one patients (29.5%) were taken off the waiting lists for various reasons with the most common one being other pressing health concerns; 9% of patients affirmed that the wait for surgery had a significant negative impact on their mental health. Conclusion This study concludes that the harm review service is a useful programme as it helps guide changes in the diagnosis and clinical picture. The service is found to be valuable by most patients, and its impact on the service specialities and multiple centres could be further assessed to draw broad conclusions.

Indexed as

efficacy of harm review clinicelective foot and ankle surgeriesfoot and ankle 52 weeks waitharm review clinic during covid-19harm review service impact

Identifiers

PMID35481306
PMCPMC9034721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.