ArticleBMJ open2022
What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parastomal hernia prevention and repair in Australasia: A binational CSSANZ survey of contemporary practice.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation.
design(1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study.
settingTwo secondary care surgical centres in England.
participantsPatients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses. OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study.
results59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma.
conclusionsThis study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17573805.
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.