Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543745›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026

A scoping review of outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials of incisional and non-incisional ventral hernia repair.

Haiye Shen, Dominic Farris, David L Sanders, Helen Dawes, Sarah E Lamb, John M Findlay

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pain outcomes in emergent versus elective ventral hernia repair: Propensity score matched analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Negative and neutral results matter in abdominal wall surgery.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026
    Article
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

6 authors.

Haiye ShenDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2HZ, UK.
Dominic FarrisPublic Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX1 2HZ, UK.
David L SandersAcademic Department of Abdominal Wall Surgery, North Devon District Hospital, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Barnstaple, EX31 4JB, UK.
Helen DawesNIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX1 2HZ, UK.
Sarah E LambNIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX1 2HZ, UK.
John M FindlayDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2HZ, UK. j.m.findlay@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-4086

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research National Institute for Health and Care Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncisional and non-incisional ventral hernias are common and important causes of symptoms, functional restriction, and complications, with significant potential to impact upon quality of life. The goals of hernia repair are to treat, prevent or improve these. However, outcomes of surgery remain relatively poor with significant gaps within the evidence base, which may be due to inconsistent use of outcome measures. The aim of this study was to appraise outcome reporting in the recent literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

objectivesThis scoping review aimed to map and categorize the outcome measures reported in RCTs of incisional and non-incisional ventral hernia repair. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All RCTs assessing any intervention related to incisional, primary, or recurrent ventral hernia repair between2015 and 2025 were included. SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: A literature search was performed of the PubMed, EMBASE (1974 to present), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in November March 2025. CHARTING

methodsData was extracted independently by two reviewers. All outcomes reported by the included studies were identified and recorded.

results118 RCTs were included. Their outcomes were mapped into five main broad categories. The commonest outcomes used were short-term operative complications (72.9%), hernia recurrence (59.3%), pain (57.6%), and quality of life (33.9%). Patient-reported outcomes were measured in 78 (66.1%) randomized controlled trials, of which 15 assessment tools were identified; 11 were generic, and 4were hernia-specific. There was considerable heterogeneity in how and when these endpoints were assessed and defined.

conclusionThis scoping review found considerable differences in outcome reporting in contemporary RCTs of incisional and non-incisional ventral hernia. These have significant implications for translating evidence into practice, and its synthesis, and support the need for a core outcome set in this field. However, we identified areas such as abdominal wall function which are infrequently reported and require consideration.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyIncisional HerniaOutcome Assessment, Health CareHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceHerniaHernia repairIncisional herniaOutcome reportingRandomized controlled trialsVentral hernia

Identifiers

PMID41543745
PMCPMC12811304

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.