Patient‐Reported Decisional Regret After Operative Otolaryngology Procedures: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature on decisional regret in adult patients undergoing operative otolaryngology procedures. The primary outcome was decisional regret scale (DRS) scores. DRS scores of 0 indicate no regret, 1-25 mild regret, and >25 moderate to strong/severe regret. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive librarian-designed strategy was used to search MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to September 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria consisted of English-language studies of adult patients who underwent operative otolaryngology treatments and reported DRS scores. Data was extracted by two independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines were followed. Oxford Centre's Levels of Evidence were used for quality assessment. RESULTS: In total, 6306 studies were screened by two independent reviewers; 13 studies were included after full-text analysis. Subspecialties comprised: Head and neck (10), endocrine (1), general (1), and rhinology (1). The DRS results of the included studies spanned a mean range of 10.1-23.9 or a median range of 0-20.0. There was a trend toward more decisional regret after large head and neck procedures or when patients underwent multiple treatment modalities. Depression, anxiety, and patient-reported quality of life measures were all correlated with decisional regret. Oxford Centre's Levels of Evidence ranged from 2 to 4. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive review of decisional regret in otolaryngology. The majority of patients had no or mild (DRS <25) decisional regret after otolaryngology treatments. Future research on pre-operative counseling and shared decision-making to further minimize patient decisional regret is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:2562-2567, 2024.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".