ArticleThe British journal of surgery2026
Standards for reporting research methods, interventions, and Outcomes in Surgical Prehabilitation studies (SOS-Prehab).
Article in The British journal of 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrehabilitation, a process of building physiological reserve before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes, is a complex, multimodal intervention that requires rigorous evaluation in clinical trials. Incomplete reporting by such trials obscures essential intervention components and delivery contexts, hindering comparability and interpretability. This, in turn, limits clinical implementation and the replication or refinement of interventions by researchers. The aim of this study was to develop a reporting checklist for RCTs of prehabilitation.
methodsA modified two-round Delphi process using the EQUATOR framework with 53 international experts across exercise, nutrition, psychological, and perioperative care disciplines was conducted. An initial checklist of candidate items was adapted from existing reporting standards, contextualized for prehabilitation, and iteratively refined through expert voting. Items rated eight to nine on a nine-point scale by ≥70% of participants in round two were classified as 'essential' and those rated seven were considered 'important'.
resultsThe final checklist comprised 40 items. Sixteen items were classified as 'essential' and 24 items were classified as 'important' for guiding comprehensive reporting of prehabilitation interventions. These items span key domains including intervention components, delivery methods, adherence, participant characteristics, and outcome measures. High agreement among experts underscores the checklist's relevance and usability.
conclusionAdoption of Standards for reporting research methods, interventions, and Outcomes in Surgical Prehabilitation studies (SOS-Prehab), alongside methodological and outcome-reporting items of CONSORT could improve transparency, completeness, and interpretability of prehabilitation trials. This could enable better reproducibility, robust evidence synthesis, and accelerate translation into clinical practice and policy.
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.