Skip to main content

Patient-initiated follow-up in surgical specialties: meta-analysis and meta-regression

In brief

Patient-initiated follow-up halves scheduled breast cancer clinic visits

Across four randomized trials and numerous cohorts, letting stable surgical patients trigger appointments themselves cut routine visits by about 50% in breast cancer and similarly reduced contacts in colorectal and rectal cancer, while patient-reported quality of life remained unchanged. The benefit varies by specialty and depends on structured rapid-access pathways, so broader adoption will need tailored designs and more economic data.

Journal
BJS open (Q1)
Published
4 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Renato Pitesa, Stephanie Moody, Andrew G Hill
PMID
42765566
DOI
10.1093/bjsopen/zrag147

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Surgery (paper of the day, 25 September 2026): Patient‑initiated follow‑up meta‑analysis in surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rising outpatient demand has accelerated adoption of patient-initiated follow-up in surgical practice. This review evaluated whether patient-initiated follow-up safely reduces clinic burden while maintaining patient outcomes across specialties. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched (2014-2025) for studies of patient-initiated follow-up, defined as a model enabling clinically stable patients to self-initiate follow-up when new or concerning symptoms arise, rather than attending prearranged appointments. Primary outcomes included outpatient appointment volume and patient-reported quality of life. Where studies reported single-arm utilization data, a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was undertaken. Exploratory meta-regression examined pathway-level factors associated with utilization. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool, observational cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and qualitative studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. RESULTS: Of 1776 manuscripts identified, 34 studies across 6 surgical specialties (breast, colorectal, otorhinolaryngology, orthopaedics, plastics, and urology) were included: 4 RCTs, 17 observational cohort studies, 11 qualitative studies, and 2 mixed-methods studies. Observational studies consistently reported reductions in routine outpatient attendance-including a reduction from 45·0% to 6·0% in first specialist appointments in patient-initiated follow-up in colorectal surgery (P < 0·001) and 52·5% of patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma not recontacting the clinic-without evidence of increased adverse outcomes. RCTs demonstrated non-inferior patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes with patient-initiated versus standard follow-up, alongside reductions in physician contact, including a 50% reduction in planned consultations in breast cancer (1·9 versus 3·8 per patient; P < 0·001) and a reduction in specialist contacts from 42·0% to 23·0% in rectal cancer. In a meta-analysis (1806 participants), the pooled patient-initiated follow-up utilization proportion was 0·19 (95% confidence interval 0·09 to 0·36; I2 = 95%), indicating substantial context-dependent variation. In oncological settings-particularly breast, colorectal, melanoma, and head and neck cancer-structured surveillance and rapid-access systems were identified as critical safety adjuncts to implementation. CONCLUSION: Patient-initiated follow-up can reduce outpatient burden in selected surgical populations without compromising patient-reported outcomes; however, its effects are dependent on the clinical context and pathway design. Risk-stratified and hybrid models may be the most appropriate, particularly in oncology. Further high-quality trials and robust economic evaluations are required to define optimal implementation strategies.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.