ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
Identifying postoperative complications after inguinal hernia repair with a smartphone application: a comparative cohort study.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validating the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application using prospective data from a randomised clinical trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application continuously measures patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by sampling experiences through brief, digital and condition-specific questions, utilising micro-moments. This can overcome the limitations of current paper questionnaires and give real-time insight into patient recovery. This exploratory study compares data from the application with retrospective data from electronic medical records (EMRs) to provide information on its accuracy in detecting postoperative complications after inguinal hernia repair.
methodsPatients were asked to use the application in addition to their usual care. The application employs twitch crowdsourcing to gather PROs. Questions from validated and frequently used questionnaires were integrated. A retrospective assessment of EMRs was combined with an additional telephone interview. The primary endpoints were the sensitivity and specificity of the application in detecting chronic postoperative inguinal pain, recurrence and surgical-site infection (SSI).
resultsA total of 215 patients were analysed. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting chronic postoperative inguinal pain were 100% (95% CI [47.8%, 100%]) and 93.7% (95% CI [88.3%, 97.1%]), respectively. For recurrence, the sensitivity was 77.8% (95% CI [40.0%, 97.2%]), and the specificity was 81.3% (95% CI [75.0%, 86.5%]). For SSI, the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% (95% CI [19.4%, 99.4%]) and 89.8% (95% CI [84.8%, 93.6%]), respectively.
conclusionThis study demonstrates satisfactory measurement capabilities of the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application for identifying postoperative complications following inguinal hernia repair. However, certain aspects require further improvement, such as addressing error-prone questions, enhancing long-term compliance, and validating (pain) measurements through prospective control data. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7813 (Dutch Trial Registry), 19 May 2019.
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.