ArticleBMJ open2025
Impact of digital surgery scheduling systems on the quality of preoperative care: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
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
introductionIneffective surgery scheduling fails to align demand with need, resulting in financial waste, resource inefficiencies and delays in care, which ultimately lead to poorer patient outcomes. Digital systems present a promising approach to optimising scheduling. However, research examining their impact remains limited. This planned systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of digital surgery scheduling systems on the quality of preoperative care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be undertaken using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, HMIC and PsycINFO (from inception to the present). The outcomes under investigation include the domains of quality of care (eg, patient-centredness, safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness of care and equity). Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data, resolving any disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in a table. The risk of bias in the articles will be evaluated using the appropriate National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute quality qssessment tool, depending on the study design. A subgroup analysis will be carried out using demographic variables supported by the data. A narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis will be performed, to quantify the impact of digital surgery scheduling tools on reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This proposed review aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence, and therefore, does not require ethical approval. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and through patient-led lay summaries. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024625469.
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.