ArticlePloS one2025
Defining and measuring acceptability of surgical interventions: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcceptability, in the context of healthcare interventions is a frequently used term, including in evaluations of surgical interventions. This reflects the importance of the concept to all stakeholders and significance to designing, implementing and evaluating interventions. Despite this, definitions and measurement of acceptability are not standardised, and acceptability is often poorly conceptualised. The aim of this scoping review was to identify how studies define, measure and report the acceptability of a surgical intervention.
methodsA scoping review was conducted adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE; Embase:APA PsycInfo; EBHealth-KSR Evidence; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; International HTA database; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted for the period January 2000 to November 2023. No language limits were applied.
resultsSixty-seven studies from 25 countries were included. The majority of studies (n = 60; 90%) did not provide a definition of acceptability. Various methods were used to collect data on acceptability, most frequently a questionnaire (n = 36; 54%), followed by qualitative interviews (n = 16; 24%). Thirty-three studies (49%) reported acceptability of the surgical intervention received to patients, nine (13%) reported hypothetical acceptability of the surgical intervention to patients, four (6%) reported acceptability to both patients and surgeons, and four studies (6%) the acceptability to surgeons alone.
conclusionStudies assessing acceptability of a surgical intervention tended not to provide a definition of acceptability and demonstrated a lack of clarity in the use of acceptability in the context of surgical interventions. There was substantial variability in how and when acceptability was measured and from which perspective. Further research is required to explore the most appropriate approaches to address variability and promote a more consistent conceptualisation and accurate measurement of acceptability in evaluations of surgical interventions.
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.