Trial reportDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2006
[Operative standardization in randomized controlled surgical trials. Meeting of the INSECT trial].
Trial report in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - Is there any consensus?BMC surgery · 2009Trial
- Trial
- Primary mesh augmentation with fibrin glue for abdominal wall closure--investigations on a biomechanical model.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundINSECT is an internationally registered, three-armed, multicentre, intraoperatively randomised model trial of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society. The interventions being compared are running suture technique with slowly absorbable monofilament suture material (PDS vs MonoPlus) and interrupted technique with a braided, rapidly absorbable suture material (Vicryl). The primary endpoint is the rate of incisional hernias 1 year postoperatively. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 25 surgeons from 24 different institutions at all levels of care evaluated the theoretical and practical sessions of the surgical investigator meeting using 25 criteria, including course organisation, content, and speaker evaluation, and a categorical grading system from 1 (very good) to 6 (insufficient).
resultsDistribution of the 625 grades was: very good (1) n=367, good (2) n=207, satisfactory (3) n=39, adequate (4) n=2, and "No statement" n=10. The average score for the investigator meeting was 1.5.
conclusionThe participants felt they were successfully prepared theoretically and practically for trial interventions and conduct by attending the meeting. Clear explanation of the measures for treatment equivalence before and during trials is mandatory in randomised controlled surgical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.