ArticleBMC health services research2024
Does randomised evidence alter clinical practise? The react qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of the SUture BIte TEchnique on clinical outcomes after midline laparotomy closure: SUBITE-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, the results of the 'Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH) Trial' were published in The Lancet. This demonstrated the superiority of small bite laparotomy closure over mass closure for the reduction of incisional hernias; despite this most surgeons have not changed their practice. Previous research has shown the time taken for the implementation of evidenced based practise within medicine takes an average of 17 years. This study aims to understand the reasons why surgeons have and have not changed their practice with regards to closure of midline laparotomy.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were completed with surgical consultants and registrars at a single institution in South West England. The interview topic guide was informed by a review of the published literature, which identified barriers to adopting evidence into surgical practice. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis with themes identified following discussions within the research team, exploring views on published data and clinical practise.
resultsNine interviews with general surgical and urological consultants as well as registrars in training were performed. Three themes were identified; 'Trusting the Evidence & Critical Appraisal', 'Surgical Attitude to Risk' and 'Adopting Evidence in Practise', that reflected barriers to the introduction of evidenced based practise to clinical work.
conclusionIdentification of the themes highlights possible areas for intervention to decrease the adoption time for evidence, for example from randomised controlled trials. The continued updating of clinical practise allows clinicians to provide best evidenced based care for patients and improve their outcomes.
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.