The patient perspective in benign foregut surgery guidelines: bridging evidence, values, and clinical decision-making.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Susheen Mahmood, Rhea Thomas, Keira Parr, Jigish Khamar, Dennis Hong, Yung Lee
{"title":"The patient perspective in benign foregut surgery guidelines: bridging evidence, values, and clinical decision-making.","authors":"Susheen Mahmood, Rhea Thomas, Keira Parr, Jigish Khamar, Dennis Hong, Yung Lee","doi":"10.1007/s00464-026-13493-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Direct 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-13493-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient 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.

Methods: Databases 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.

Results: Twenty-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.

Conclusions: Direct 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.

良性前肠手术指南中的患者观点:连接证据、价值和临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书