Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35545393›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Effectiveness of pre-anaesthetic assessment clinic: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised prospective controlled studies.

Eirunn Wallevik Kristoffersen, Anne Opsal, Tor Oddbjørn Tveit, Rigmor C Berg, Mariann Fossum

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Barriers to Implementation of Telehealth Pre-anesthesia Evaluation Visits in the Department of Veterans Affairs.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Preanaesthetic assessment and management in the context of the district hospital.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2021
    Article
  17. Observational
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

5 authors.

Eirunn Wallevik KristoffersenDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand/Grimstad, Norway eirunn.w.kristoffersen@uia.no.ORCID 0000-0002-8416-7312
Anne OpsalDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand/Grimstad, Norway.
Tor Oddbjørn TveitDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand/Grimstad, Norway.
Rigmor C BergDivison for health services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Mariann FossumDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Kristiansand/Grimstad, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4162-4277

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of pre-anaesthesia assessment clinics (PACs) in improving the quality and safety of perioperative patient care.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Medline and Embase (OvidSP) were systematically searched on 11 September 2018 and updated on 3 February 2020 and 4 February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria for this study were studies published in English or Scandinavian language and scientific original research that included randomised or non-randomised prospective controlled studies. Additionally, studies that reported the outcomes from a PAC consultation with the patient present were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by a team of three authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Data extraction was performed by one author and checked by four other authors. Results were synthesised narratively owing to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

resultsSeven prospective controlled studies on the effectiveness of PACs were included. Three studies reported a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and two studies reported a significant reduction in cancellation of surgery for medical reasons when patients were seen in the PAC. In addition, the included studies presented mixed results regarding anxiety in patients. Most studies had a high risk of bias.

conclusionThis systematic review demonstrated a reduction in the length of hospital stay and cancellation of surgery when the patients had been assessed in the PAC. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to gain a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of PACs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019137724.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnestheticsChecklistControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansLength of StayProspective StudiesAnestheticsAdult anaesthesiaAdult surgeryHealth & safetyQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35545393
PMCPMC9096538

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.