Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41022441›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Use of ambulatory pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review.

Benjamin Fox, Mary Walters, Samir Pathak, Adam Peckham-Cooper, Natalie S Blencowe

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Benjamin Fox *Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2949-6236
Mary Walters *Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Samir PathakLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Adam Peckham-CooperLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK adam.peckham-cooper@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5660-5314
Natalie S BlencoweLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAmbulatory care is defined as the provision of medical treatment by healthcare professionals outside an inpatient hospital setting. While well-established in acute medicine, uptake of ambulatory pathways in emergency general surgery (EGS) is variable and optimal design and delivery is unclear in this context. This systematic review sought to (1) appraise current EGS ambulatory pathway literature and (2) ascertain the constituent components across the identified pathways, guiding the development of comprehensive templates for future EGS ambulatory pathways.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library, from 5 December 2018 to 5 December 2023 inclusive. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All primary observational studies (ie, case-control, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) were included. Case series and conference abstracts were excluded due to the high likelihood of incomplete data. Studies reporting paediatric or non-surgical populations, or ambulatory surgical care within a primary care setting, were also excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: General study characteristics (year and journal of publication, country of origin, study design, disease area, number of patients receiving ambulatory management and use of control groups) were recorded. To identify the constituent components of EGS ambulatory pathways, an initial subset of five papers was reviewed, from which four categories were identified (decision-making processes, scoring/classification systems, investigations and care escalation and discharge criteria). An additional fifth component ('follow-up') was identified during data extraction. Reporting of the constituent components of ambulatory pathways was also extracted, as well as outcomes including readmission, complications and mortality.

resultsOf 43 included studies, there were 8 RCTs, 31 cohort studies and 4 studies using other methods. Reporting of all aspects of EGS ambulatory pathways was heterogeneous. 24 (56%) papers reported the specialty and grade of clinician acting as senior decision-maker. 17 different scoring/classification systems were used. 32 (74%) papers described using investigations to select ambulatory patients, including blood tests (n=12) and imaging (n=16). Eight studies (19%) specified both care escalation and discharge criteria. Information about follow-up was described in 29 papers, with location (n=29), time points (n=26), personnel (n=16) and the form of the follow-up (n=23) all reported variably. Readmission rates were recorded in 34 studies and ranged from 0% to 13%. Most studies (n=32) reported 30-day readmission, although 48 hours (n=1) and 90 days (n=1) were also used. Mortality was recorded in 24 papers, with 21 reporting a mortality rate of 0 and the remaining 3 reporting rates of <0.5%.

conclusionsKey components of published EGS ambulatory pathways include decision-making processes, scoring/classification systems, investigations, care escalation and discharge criteria, and follow-up. However, this information is currently inconsistently reported. Future work to identify and agree on guidelines for the 'core' components of ambulatory EGS pathways is needed, to facilitate cross-study comparisons, and crucially, provide a 'gold-standard' framework for developing future ambulatory pathways.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresGeneral SurgeryAcute Care SurgeryHumansDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedSafetySURGERYSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID41022441
PMCPMC12481336

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.