Summary of findings 2. Patient education with repeat‐back compared with patient education without repeat‐back for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Patient education with repeat‐back compared with patient education without repeat‐back for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Patient or population: patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Settings: secondary or tertiary hospital. Intervention: patient education with repeat‐back. Comparison: patient education without repeat‐back.
Outcomes	Effect estimate	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Patient knowledge	The mean patient knowledge in the intervention groups was 0.07 standard deviations higher (0.22 lower to 0.37 higher)	173 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2
This trial did not report surgery‐related morbidity, quality of life, proportion of people discharged as day‐procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, visual analogue pain scores, requirement for opiate analgesia, return to work, patient satisfaction, patient anxiety, 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 was of high risk of bias.
 ² 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.