Summary of findings for the main comparison. Patient education compared with no patient education for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
| Patient education compared with no patient education for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy | |||
| Patient or population: patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Settings: secondary or tertiary hospital. Intervention: patient education. Comparison: no patient education. | |||
| Outcomes | Effect estimate | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) |
| Patient knowledge | The mean patient knowledge in the intervention groups was 0.19 standard deviations higher (0.02 lower to 0.41 higher) | 338 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Patient satisfaction | The mean patient satisfaction in the intervention groups was 0.48 standard deviations higher (0.42 lower to 1.37 higher) | 305 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Patient anxiety | The mean patient anxiety in the intervention groups was 0.37 standard deviations lower (0.82 lower to 0.09 higher) | 76 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 |
| None of the trials reported surgery‐related morbidity, quality of life, proportion of people discharged as day‐procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, return to work, or the number of unplanned visits to the doctor. | |||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||
1 The trial(s) was (were) of high risk of bias. 2 There was severe heterogeneity as noted by the I2 statistic and the lack of overlap of confidence intervals. 3 The confidence intervals overlapped 0 and minimal clinically important difference. The total number of patients in the intervention and control group was fewer than 400.