CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Patient Satisfaction in HealthcareTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPelvic floor disorders treatments

Outpatient visits versus telephone interviews for postoperative care: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Thompson, Jennifer C., Cichowski, Sara B., Rogers, Rebecca G., Qeadan, Fares, Zambrano, Julissa, Wenzl, Cynthia, Jeppson, Peter C., Dunivan, Gena C. +1 more·2019·International Urogynecology Journal
DOI 10.1007/s00192-019-03895-zPMC PMC6699921
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to determine whether postoperative telephone follow-up was noninferior to in-person clinic visits based on patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were safety and clinical outcomes.MethodsWomen scheduled for pelvic surgery were recruited from a single academic institution and randomized to clinic or telephone follow-up. The clinic group returned for visits 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively and the telephone group received a call from a nurse at the same time intervals. Women completed the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey (S-CAHPS) questionnaire, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20, and pain scales prior to and 3 months postoperatively. Randomized patients who completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months were included for analysis. Sample size calculations, based on a 15% noninferiority limit in the S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating, required 100 participants, with power = 80% and alpha = 0.025.ResultsFrom October 2016 to November 2017, 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, were randomized, and included in the final analysis (clinic group n = 50, telephone group n = 50). Mean age was 58.5 ± 12.2 years. Demographic data and surgery type, dichotomized into outpatient and inpatient, did not differ between groups. The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was noninferior to the clinic group (92 vs 88%, respectively, rated their surgeons 9 and10, with a noninferiority limit of 36.1; p = 0.006). Adverse events did not differ between groups (n = 26; 57% fclinic vs 43% telephone; p = 0.36). Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits. Clinical outcome measures improved in both groups, with no differences (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsTelephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in noninferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events. Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02891187.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-019-03895-z

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 32 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    All other S-CAHPS composites showed non-inferiority between telephone and clinic groups.

    “All other composites of the S-CAHPS questionnaire showed non-inferiority between the telephone and clinic groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    PFDI-20 scores improved postoperatively in both groups (all p<0.05).

    “The PFDI-20 scores for each domain improved postoperatively in both groups (all p<0.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The telephone group did not require more emergency room or primary care visits than the clinic group.

    “Patients in the telephone group did not require additional emergency room or primary care visits compared to the clinic group.”
    • Also stated in: § SAFETY · plain
      “Telephone postoperative care did not increase the frequency of emergency or primary care visits (p>0.05.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The incidence of adverse events did not differ between clinic and telephone groups (26 total; 57% clinic vs 43% telephone, p=0.36).

    “Adverse events did not differ between groups (n=26; 57% from clinic vs 43% from telephone group, p=0.36).”
    • Also stated in: § SAFETY · plain
      “There was no difference in adverse events between the clinic and telephone groups, p=0.36.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    PFDI-20 change scores did not differ between groups.

    “PFDI-20 change scores did not differ between groups (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The clinic group had 147 total clinic visits (mean 2.9), while the telephone group had 35 total clinic visits (mean 0.7).

    “The clinic group returned for 147 total clinic visits (range=0-7, mean= 2.9 visits).”
    • Also stated in: § SAFETY · plain
      “There were 35 total clinic visits by patients in the telephone group (range= 0-5, mean 0.7 visits).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating in the telephone group was non-inferior to the clinic group, with 92% of clinic and 88% of telephone participants rating their surgeon 9-10, non-inferiority limit 36.1, p=0.006.

    “The S-CAHPS global assessment surgeon rating from patients in the telephone group was non-inferior to the clinic group (92% clinic vs 88% telephone participants rated their surgeons 9-10 on S-CAHPS, with a non-inferiority limit of 36.1, p=0.006).”
    • Also stated in: § S-CAHPS · plain
      “Most patients selected a “top box” rating of their surgeon that equates to 9-10/10: 92% of the clinic vs 88% of the telephone participants, with a non-inferiority limit of 36.1, p=0.006 (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Urinary tract infections were the most common adverse event, occurring in 15% of participants and contributing 58% of all adverse events (n=26).

    “The most common adverse event in our study were urinary tract infections, occurring at the relatively low rate of 15% of participants.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “In the current study, urinary tract infections contributed to 58% of the total rate of adverse events (n=26).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Both clinic visits and telephone calls used the same script to ensure the same postoperative data were obtained.

    “Both the clinic visits and telephone calls included the same script to ensure the same postoperative data were obtained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Allocation concealment used sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes kept by a research assistant not involved in patient care.

    “Allocation concealment was achieved using sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes, and kept by a research assistant not directly involved in patient care.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Demographic characteristics and surgery type did not differ between the clinic and telephone groups.

    “The patients in both follow-up groups were similar in demographic characteristics (Table 1).”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “No difference in surgery type existed between groups with half of all participants (53%) undergoing inpatient, pelvic organ prolapse repair.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Randomization allocation used a simple computer-generated scheme.

    “Randomization allocation was determined by a simple, computer-generated scheme.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of 103 randomized women, 3 were lost to follow-up, and 100 (50 per group) completed the S-CAHPS at 3 months and were included in the final analysis.

    “One hundred three women underwent surgery and were randomly assigned to a postoperative followup group; 51 to the outpatient clinic group, 52 to the telephone group. Three patients (one from the clinic group and two from the telephone group) were lost to follow-up. For the final analysis, 50 patients from the clinic group and 50 patients from the telephone group completed the full S-CAHPS question”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Clinical outcomes were measured with the PFDI-20 and pain scales.

    “Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and pain scales [16].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Safety outcomes were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo scale.

    “Safety was evaluated using adverse outcomes at the time of surgery and throughout the postoperative period based on the Clavien-Dindo scale as well as patient-reported, unscheduled visits to the emergency room, urgent care, and primary care offices [15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The trial was a randomized controlled non-inferiority study.

    “This randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted at a single, academic institution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Patient satisfaction was measured with the S-CAHPS questionnaire, a validated instrument developed by the American College of Surgeons and endorsed by the National Quality Forum.

    “The primary outcome was patient satisfaction based on the Surgical-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (S-CAHPS) questionnaire overseen by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).”
    • Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · plain
      “This questionnaire was developed by the American College of Surgeons and endorsed by the National Quality Forum in 2012 [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] Sage J. Using S-CAHPS. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2013;98(8):53–6.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] Schmocker RK, et al. Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS). Surgery. 2015;158(6):1724–33. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

    “An intention to treat analysis was performed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most serious complications occur before the two-week postoperative appointment, while other foreign body complications such as mesh erosion may take longer.

    “While most serious complications occur before a two week postoperative appointment, other foreign body complications, such as mesh erosion, may take longer [23].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] Mueller MG, et al. Postoperative appointments: which ones count? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1873–7. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    New patient and follow-up visits can be scheduled more easily and earlier, improving clinical productivity.

    “Meanwhile, new patient and follow-up visits can be scheduled more easily, earlier, allowing for improved clinical productivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Quality incorporates clinical outcomes, safety, and patient satisfaction.

    “Quality incorporates clinical outcomes, safety, and patient satisfaction [1].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Cortese DA, Korsmo JO. Putting U.S. health care on the right track. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1326–7. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study's findings shift the focus to quality of care.

    “These findings, assessing an innovative approach to postoperative care, shifts the focus to quality of care.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Telephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in non-inferior patient satisfaction without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events.

    “Telephone follow-up after pelvic floor surgery results in non-inferior patient satisfaction, without differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Telephone calls for postoperative follow-up after surgical management of pelvic floor disorders results in non-inferior patient satisfaction without sacrificing safety or clinical outcomes.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Telephone follow-up for postoperative care provides high patient satisfaction without sacrificing safety and clinical outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The rate of urinary tract infection after midurethral sling procedures and prolapse repairs in other studies ranges from 31% to 33.6%.

    “The rate of urinary tract infection after midurethral sling procedures and prolapse repairs in other studies ranges from 31-33.6% [20, 22].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [20] Wei JT, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Ellington DR, Erekson EA, Richter HE. Outcomes of surgery for stress urinary incontinence in the older woman. Clin Geriatr Med. 2015;31(4):487–505. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study adds to the literature through its randomized controlled design, inclusion of a variety of outpatient and inpatient surgeries, and use of validated S-CAHPS satisfaction scores.

    “Our study adds to this body of literature because of the randomized controlled study design and inclusion of a variety of outpatient and more complicated inpatient surgeries and evaluated adult patients utilizing validated satisfaction scores with the S-CAHPS questionnaire.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care.

    “Telephone follow-up may improve healthcare quality and decrease patient and provider burden for postoperative care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The difference in travel distance may reflect that patients who live farther from care were more interested in telephone follow-up.

    “This difference may reflect that patients who live farther from clinical care were more interested in receiving telephone follow-up and participating in this trial since this would be more convenient for them and their families.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A UK urogynecology study of telephone follow-up for midurethral slings reported high patient satisfaction and a low rate of required clinic follow-up.

    “In the urogynecology literature, one study from the United Kingdom evaluated a telephone follow-up protocol for midurethral slings. Again, patients reported high satisfaction with a low rate of required clinic follow-up [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Jefferis H, et al. Telephone follow-up after day case tension-free vaginal tape insertion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):787–90. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Pediatric studies using non-validated global assessments found high satisfaction with telephone follow-up and only about 10% of patients requiring a clinic visit.

    “Pediatric studies evaluating patient satisfaction used a non-validated global assessment to determine if patients or their parents were satisfied with their care and/or desired a clinic visit [3, 4, 7, 19]. These satisfaction scores were high, and only about 10% of patients required a clinic visit [3, 4, 7, 19].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [3] Fischer K, et al. Efficacy and utility of phone call follow-up after pediatric general surgery versus traditional clinic follow-up. Perm J. 2015;19(1):11–4. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Rosbe KW, et al. Efficacy of postoperative follow-up telephone calls for patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(6):718–21 discussion 722. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Gray RT, et al. Postoperative telephone review is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):76–9.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Jefferis H, et al. Telephone follow-up after day case tension-free vaginal tape insertion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):787–90. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The S-CAHPS questionnaire had a ceiling effect, with a high proportion of top-box responses, limiting the ability to stratify meaningful ranges of data.

    “Some of the limitations of this study are inherent to the S-CAHPS questionnaire and its ceiling effect. Eighty-eight percent and 92% of patients in the telephone and clinic groups respectively rated their surgeon 9 to 10 out of 10. There was a high proportion of respondents marking the “top box”. Therefore, we cannot stratify any meaningful range of data utilizing this instrument.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was not powered to evaluate uncommon postoperative events such as delayed ureteral injury, so it cannot determine whether telephone visits would delay or hinder care for such events.

    “We chose the S-CAHPS because of it’s a patient-centered, validated measure of surgical satisfaction, but we were not powered, nor would it be possible to power to evaluate other important parts of post-operative experience such as delayed ureteral injury. Thus we cannot determine if telephone visits would delay or hinder care for uncommon post-operative events.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    This form of postoperative follow-up may be generalizable to other surgical specialties and routine gynecologic surgery.

    “Furthermore, this form of postoperative follow-up may be generalizable to other surgical specialties as well as routine gynecologic surgery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This patient-centered delivery of postoperative care provides an efficient and effective model for the healthcare system that shifts focus to improving quality of care.

    “This patient-centered delivery of postoperative care provides an efficient and effective model for our healthcare system that shifts the focus to improving quality of care.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Quality is achieved by improving outcomes and patient satisfaction while decreasing adverse events.

    “Quality is achieved by improving outcomes and patient satisfaction while decreasing adverse events [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Prior surgical literature reports telephone-based postoperative follow-up as an alternative to in-person visits.

    “Pediatric and adult surgical literature increasingly reports on changes in this traditional practice by performing follow-up care via telephone in place of outpatient postoperative visits [3-9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [3] Fischer K, et al. Efficacy and utility of phone call follow-up after pediatric general surgery versus traditional clinic follow-up. Perm J. 2015;19(1):11–4. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Rosbe KW, et al. Efficacy of postoperative follow-up telephone calls for patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(6):718–21 discussion 722. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Kimman ML, et al. Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(8):1175–85. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Uppal S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conventional and nurse-led telephone follow-up after nasal septal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86(4):243–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Gray RT, et al. Postoperative telephone review is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):76–9.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Hwa K, Wren SM. Telehealth follow-up in lieu of postoperative clinic visit for ambulatory surgery: results of a pilot program. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):823–7. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Fallaize RC, et al. Telephone follow-up following office anorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(6):464–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In observational studies, telephone-based postoperative care provides safe and effective care at reduced patient costs and improved patient satisfaction on non-validated global scales.

    “In observational studies, telephone-based postoperative care provides safe and effective care at reduced patient costs and improved patient satisfaction on non-validated global scales [3-9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [3] Fischer K, et al. Efficacy and utility of phone call follow-up after pediatric general surgery versus traditional clinic follow-up. Perm J. 2015;19(1):11–4. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Rosbe KW, et al. Efficacy of postoperative follow-up telephone calls for patients who underwent adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126(6):718–21 discussion 722. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Kimman ML, et al. Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(8):1175–85. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Uppal S, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of conventional and nurse-led telephone follow-up after nasal septal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004;86(4):243–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Gray RT, et al. Postoperative telephone review is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. Ulster Med J. 2010;79(2):76–9.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] Hwa K, Wren SM. Telehealth follow-up in lieu of postoperative clinic visit for ambulatory surgery: results of a pilot program. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):823–7. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Fallaize RC, et al. Telephone follow-up following office anorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(6):464–6. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This format has potential to provide adequate service and high satisfaction for postoperative patients with barriers to returning to clinic.

    “This format has the potential to provide adequate service and high satisfaction for postoperative patients who live far away, are unable to take time off work, who cannot rely on family members or friends for transportation, or any other circumstances that are barriers to returning to clinic for postoperative followup.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study provides strategies to improve patient flow through a subspecialty clinic.

    “From a clinical standpoint, this study provides strategies to improve patient flow through a subspecialty clinic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The necessity of routine in-person postoperative visits is unknown.

    “The necessity of routine, in-person postoperative visits is unknown as these visits are based on historic norms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The utility and acceptability of postoperative telephone visits for pelvic floor disorder surgery have not been evaluated.

    “The utility and acceptability of postoperative telephone visits for patients undergoing surgery for pelvic floor disorders, such as incontinence and prolapse, have not been evaluated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Routine postoperative visits contribute to surgical costs, impede access to care, consume health care resources, and add patient time and nonmedical costs.

    “Routine postoperative visits contribute to surgical costs, impede access to care for other patients, consume health care resources as well as patients’ time and additional nonmedical costs.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No randomized trials compare in-person visits to telephone visits for postoperative care.

    “While others have reported outcomes from observational studies, no randomized trials compare in-person visits to telephone visits for postoperative care.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Currently, there are no guidelines to direct scheduling of postoperative appointments following urogynecologic surgeries.

    “Currently, there are no guidelines to direct scheduling of postoperative appointments following urogynecologic surgeries.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two different non-inferiority limits are reported

    Major

    The methods specify a 15% non-inferiority limit for the surgeon rating, but the result for that rating gives a limit of 36.1. The text does not reconcile the two stated limits for the primary outcome.

  • Different enrollment and randomization counts in Abstract vs Results

    Minor

    The Abstract says 100 participants were consented, underwent surgery, randomized, and included in the final analysis. The Results section states 120 women were enrolled, 103 underwent surgery and were randomized, with only 100 completing the full questionnaire for final analysis.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thompson, J. C., Cichowski, S. B., Rogers, R. G., Qeadan, F., Zambrano, J., Wenzl, C., Jeppson, P. C., Dunivan, G. C., & Komesu, Y. M.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Cichowski, Sara B.
ORCID
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-02-19
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1639-1646
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
DOI
10.1007/s00192-019-03895-z
PMC
PMC6699921
OpenAlex
W2916323071
Semantic Scholar
0170daa2c49e05c7ba773e2388ad2cfff2b5b728
Cited by
82
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 10
FWCI
17.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
University of New Mexico (UL1TR001449)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
postoperative care, telephone follow-up, outpatient visits, pelvic floor surgery, patient satisfaction, non-inferiority, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, postoperative pain, adverse events, nurse follow-up, quality of care, provider burden, urogynecologic surgery, pelvic organ prolapse surgery, stress urinary incontinence surgery
MeSH terms
Telerehabilitation, Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Care, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Patient Satisfaction, Pelvic Floor Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review