ArticleBJS open2024
Novel Textbook Outcomes following emergency laparotomy: Delphi exercise.
Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative pulmonary complications following major emergency abdominal surgery: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes-an observational study.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Defining the bellwether procedures and processes for global trauma care: an international Delphi study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Is there a difference in textbook outcomes of emergency cholecystectomy in older patients compared with younger patients?World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025Article
- Surgical Textbook Outcomes in the Era of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Skin Cancers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Navigating Life Post-emergency Laparotomy: A Narrative Review on Quality-of-Life Outcomes.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTextbook outcomes are composite outcome measures that reflect the ideal overall experience for patients. There are many of these in the elective surgery literature but no textbook outcomes have been proposed for patients following emergency laparotomy. The aim was to achieve international consensus amongst experts and patients for the best Textbook Outcomes for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy.
methodsA modified Delphi exercise was undertaken with three planned rounds to achieve consensus regarding the best Textbook Outcomes based on the category, number and importance (Likert scale of 1-5) of individual outcome measures. There were separate questions for non-trauma and trauma. A patient engagement exercise was undertaken after round 2 to inform the final round.
resultsA total of 337 participants from 53 countries participated in all three rounds of the exercise. The final Textbook Outcomes were divided into 'early' and 'longer-term'. For non-trauma patients the proposed early Textbook Outcome was 'Discharged from hospital without serious postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation or death). For trauma patients it was 'Discharged from hospital without unexpected transfusion after haemostasis, and no serious postoperative complications (adapted Clavien-Dindo for trauma ≥ grade III; including intra-abdominal sepsis, organ failure, unplanned re-operation on or death)'. The longer-term Textbook Outcome for both non-trauma and trauma was 'Achieved the early Textbook Outcome, and restoration of baseline quality of life at 1 year'.
conclusionEarly and longer-term Textbook Outcomes have been agreed by an international consensus of experts for non-trauma and trauma emergency laparotomy. These now require clinical validation with patient data.
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.