SynthesisThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2026
Health literacy and patient outcomes in acute care surgery: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2026. 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.
- Health literacy in perioperative care: toward better shared decision-making through navigation and communication design.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy (HL) is the ability to understand and use information for health decisions. Low HL is associated with poor surgical outcomes and disparities in care, but its impact on acute care surgery (ACS) populations is poorly understood. Health literacy is important in ACS populations where patients have complex medical needs, limited preoperative communication, and significant social vulnerabilities. We performed a systematic review aimed at assessing HL-related outcomes in ACS populations, evaluating the quality of existing evidence and examining equity-related variable collection using the PROGRESS+ framework.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried up to May 25, 2023, and studies evaluating HL in ACS populations were included. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant articles and performed risk of bias analyses. Studies evaluating the association between HL and patient outcomes in ACS populations were included. Equity-related reporting within studies was evaluated with the PROGRESS+ checklist. Of 1,369 abstracts identified, 10 studies remained after full-text review.
resultsAll included studies were observational with a median patient enrollment of 128 (interquartile range, 58-199). Low HL was associated with worse knowledge of injuries, decreased adherence, and poorer follow-up in seven studies (70%). Moderate to high risk of bias was found in six studies (60%). No study reported all 10 PROGRESS+ variables, and 4 studies (40%) reported 3 or fewer.
conclusionWhile studies evaluating HL-related outcomes in ACS populations are few, many found adverse outcomes related to low HL. However, these studies frequently lacked validated measures, comprehensive variable reporting, and consideration of social factors, with many at a high risk of bias. High-quality research using standardized HL instruments and improved equity data collection is needed to inform interventions and improve outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta analyses; Level IV.
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.