Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37147462›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Evaluation of remote digital postoperative wound monitoring in routine surgical practice.

Kenneth A McLean, Alessandro Sgrò, Leo R Brown, Louis F Buijs, Luke Daines, Mark A Potter, Matt-Mouley Bouamrane, Ewen M Harrison

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

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. 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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
12.1field-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.

NCT05069103 nacompletednot on this map

ImplementatioN of Remote Surgical wOund Assessment During the coviD-19 pandEmic

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2021 to 2023Enrolled211ConditionsSurgical Site InfectionArmsIntervention
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kenneth A McLeanDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-9086
Alessandro SgròColorectal Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-8342
Leo R BrownDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6181-7020
Louis F BuijsColorectal Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Luke DainesCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 9 Little France Rd, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.
Mark A PotterColorectal Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-7515
Matt-Mouley BouamraneCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, 9 Little France Rd, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK.
Ewen M HarrisonDepartment of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK. ewen.harrison@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5018-3066
University of Edinburgh · GBWestern General Hospital · GBThe Queen's Medical Research Institute · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring provides an opportunity to strengthen postoperative community care and minimise the burden of surgical-site infection (SSI). This study aimed to pilot a remote digital postoperative wound monitoring service and evaluate the readiness for implementation in routine clinical practice. This was a single-arm pilot implementational study of remote digital postoperative wound monitoring across two tertiary care hospitals in the UK (IDEAL stage 2b, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05069103). Adults undergoing abdominal surgery were recruited and received a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patients received 30-day postoperative follow-up, including the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). A thematic mixed-methods approach was used, according to the WHO framework for monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions. 200 patients were enroled, of whom 115 (57.5%) underwent emergency surgical procedures. Overall, the 30-day SSI rate was 16.5% (n = 33/200), with 72.7% (n = 24) diagnosed post-discharge. Usage of the intervention was 83.0% (n = 166/200), with subsequently 74.1% (n = 123/166) TUQ completion. There were no issues reported with feasibility of the technology, with the reliability (3.87, 95% CI: 3.73-4.00) and quality of the interface rated highly (4.18, 95%: 4.06-4.30). Patient acceptance was similarly high with regards to ease of use (4.51, 95% CI: 4.41-4.62), satisfaction (4.27, 95% CI: 4.13-4.41), and usefulness (4.07, 95% CI: 3.92-4.23). Despite the desire for more frequent and personalised interactions, the majority viewed the intervention as providing meaningful benefit over routine postoperative care. Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring successfully demonstrated readiness for implementation with regards to the technology, usability, and healthcare process improvement.

Identifiers

PMID37147462
PMCPMC10161985
OpenAlexW4372278942

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.