ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
The patient perspective in benign foregut surgery guidelines: bridging evidence, values, and clinical decision-making.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient values influence preference-sensitive decisions in benign foregut (upper gastrointestinal) surgery, but their incorporation into guideline development is unclear. This systematic review evaluated how patient perspectives are included in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and whether involvement is associated with quality.
methodsDatabases and society websites were searched for CPGs addressing endoscopic or surgical management of benign foregut disease from January 2010 to March 2026. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, mapped involvement across the 10-stage Armstrong framework, and assessed quality using AGREE II.
resultsTwenty-six CPGs were included. All used evidence-grading methods, but only 8 (31%) reported direct patient involvement. Six additional CPGs (23%) considered patient values indirectly through literature review and clinician assumptions. No CPG published before 2018 reported direct involvement. Among patient-involved CPGs, engagement most often occurred during recommendation development (8/8), evidence interpretation (5/8), and question or outcome formulation (5/8). None reported patient involvement in dissemination, implementation, updating, or evaluation of engagement. Later publication year was associated with direct involvement (OR 1.54 per year). In unadjusted analyses patient-involved CPGs had higher AGREE II scores for clarity, applicability, and editorial independence, but this did not remain statistically significant in sensitivity analyses restricting publication year and methodologist involvement.
conclusionsDirect patient involvement remains uncommon and concentrated in recommendation development rather than the entirety of guideline development. Foregut-related surgical societies should combine patient-preference evidence with transparently reported patient partnership from priority setting through implementation and updating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881312What 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.