Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35764890›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2022

Patient Follow-up After Orthopaedic Outreach Trips - Do We Know Whether Patients are Improving?

Chelsea Leversedge, Samuel Castro, Luis Miguel Castro Appiani, Robin Kamal, Lauren Shapiro

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Global Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Care: Perspectives Beyond the US.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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.

Chelsea LeversedgeStanford School of Medicine Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, VOICES Health Policy Research Center, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, 94306, USA.
Samuel CastroStanford School of Medicine, 291 Campus Drive, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA.
Luis Miguel Castro AppianiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Clinica Biblica Aveinda, 14 Calle 1 Y Central, San José, Costa Rica, USA.
Robin KamalStanford School of Medicine Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, VOICES Health Policy Research Center, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, 94306, USA.
Lauren ShapiroSchool of Medicine Department of Orthopaedics, University of California San Francisco, 1500 Owens Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. Lauren.Shapiro@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5396-5488

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of traumatic musculoskeletal injuries falls greatest on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To help address this burden, organizations host over 6,000 outreach trips annually, 20% of which are orthopaedic. Monitoring post-surgical outcomes is critical to ensuring care quality; however, the implementation of such monitoring is unknown. The purpose of this review is to identify published follow-up practices of short-term orthopaedic surgery outreach trips to LMICs.

methodsWe completed a systematic review of Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and ProQuest following PRISMA guidelines. Follow-up method, rate, duration, and types of outcomes measured along with barriers to follow-up were collected and reported.

resultsThe initial search yielded 1,452 articles, 18 of which were eligible. The mean follow-up time was 5.4 months (range: 15 days-7 years). The mean follow-up rate was 65.8% (range: 22%-100%), the weighted rate was 57.5%. Fifteen studies reported follow-up at or after 3 months while eight studies reported follow-up at or after 9 months. Fifteen studies reported follow-up in person, three reported follow-up via phone call or SMS. Outcome reporting varied among mortality, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. The majority (75%) outlined barriers to follow-up, most commonly noting transportation and costs of follow-up to the patient.

conclusionsThere is minimal and heterogeneous public reporting of patient outcomes and follow-up after outreach trips to LMICs, limiting quality assessment and improvement. Future work should address the design and implementation of tools and guidelines to improve follow-up as well as outcome measurement to ensure provision of high-quality care.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal SystemOrthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsFollow-Up StudiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID35764890
PMCPMC9436850

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.