Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40690086›Full record

ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Rethinking surgical success in non-cancer operations-why patient experience must lead.

Jacob Rosenberg, Anders Gram-Hanssen, Hugin Reistrup, Jason Joe Baker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Non-Operative Considerations in Relation to Parastomal Hernia.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jacob RosenbergDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. jacob.rosenberg@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-1086
Anders Gram-HanssenDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hugin ReistrupDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jason Joe BakerDepartment of Surgery, Center for Perioperative Optimization, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditionally, surgical success in non-cancer operations, such as elective hernia repair, has been defined by clinical outcomes, including recurrence and complication rates. However, these measures do not capture the primary reason patients seek surgery: relief from symptoms and an improved quality of life. Despite the evident patient-centered goal of non-cancer surgical procedures, research has long prioritized clinical parameters over patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A shift is essential to ensure that surgical success aligns with what truly matters to patients. MAIN BODY: Current surgical research and practice heavily rely on clinical benchmarks that do not adequately reflect patients' lived experiences. For non-cancer conditions, where surgery is elective and aims to enhance quality of life, PROs should serve as the primary indicators of success. Studies across various surgical disciplines have revealed discrepancies between clinical outcome measures and patient satisfaction, highlighting the need for validated, standardized PRO instruments. The Danish AFTERHERNIA Project exemplifies efforts to integrate PROs into surgical evaluations, utilizing digital health infrastructure to systematically capture patient experiences. Additionally, condition-specific tools, such as the Abdominal Hernia-Q, demonstrate the growing recognition of patient-centered metrics. However, the widespread implementation of PRO measurement faces challenges, including resource constraints and the need for clinician training. Addressing these barriers is important for redefining success in non-cancer surgical care.

conclusionsA paradigm shift in non-cancer surgical evaluation is important. Success should be measured not only by technical outcomes but also by enhancements in patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction. Incorporating PROs into surgical research and practice is both a scientific necessity and an ethical responsibility to ensure that patient needs are addressed. Moving forward, the patient experience must become the foundation for defining surgical success in non-cancer conditions. Ultimately, the primary objective of surgical intervention should be to improve the patient's health status and overall well-being compared to their preoperative condition.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionSurgical Procedures, OperativeHumansQuality of LifeHernia surgeryPatient-reported outcomesPatient satisfactionQuality of lifeSurgical evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40690086
PMCPMC12279678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.