ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Reporting Clinical Outcomes in Hand Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review Using Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Studies as a Model.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate clinical outcome reporting in hand surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) studies as a model. Methods: This International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews-registered systematic review (CRD42023461653) adheres to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, focusing on RCTs evaluating WALANT in hand and upper limb surgery. A systematic search across five databases was conducted to include all eligible articles from inception until search date (April 1, 2023). Inclusion criteria encompassed WALANT RCTs in upper limb surgery, with exclusion criteria addressing non-RCTs and non-English studies. Data extraction covered study characteristics, patient demographics, procedures performed, and outcomes reported. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was employed for quality assessment. Results: The search identified 304 articles-after screening, 11 were included for analysis, encompassing 889 patients in WALANT RCTs. Technical outcomes were most reported (73%), whereas functional was least commonly reported (36%). The analysis encompassed a heterogeneous patient cohort, with an average follow-up period of 41.3 days. Challenges in standardizing functional outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were identified. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials indicated an overall low risk, affirming the methodological rigor of the included studies. Conclusions: A significant diversity in outcome reporting and assessment tools was identified, emphasizing the challenges in standardization and outcome reporting across RCTs. Although technical outcomes were prevalent, patient-reported and functional outcomes were often lacking. The study underscores the need for further research standardization to optimize patient care and advance evidence-based decision making, as variability in outcomes reporting hinders the ability to draw consistent conclusions and comparisons across studies. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapy/Prevention, Etiology/Harm IA.
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.