ReviewAnnals of surgery2006
Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice.
Review in Annals of surgery, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07392268 (Clinical Utility and Validation of Novel AI-ENDO System in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Clinical Utility and Validation of Novel AI-ENDO System in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Objective assessment of surgical operative performance by observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA): a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2010Guideline
- 3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Confidence in managing open-globe injuries and endophthalmitis: a pre- and postwet-lab training evaluation.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Enhancing patient safety: identifying fall risks during patient transfers in operating rooms.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Techniques.Cureus · 2023Review
- Surgical residents as "second victims" following exposure to medical errors in a tertiary health training facility in Nigeria: a phenomenology study.Patient safety in surgery · 2023Article
- The impact and prevention of systemic and diagnostic errors in surgical malpractice claims in Japan: a retrospective cohort study.Surgery today · 2023Article
- An Image Information-Based Objective Assessment Method of Technical Manipulation Skills for Intravascular Interventions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive colorectal surgery learning curve.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- "Spine Surgery Checklist": A Step towards Perfection through Protocols.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery. How to Reach Expertise? A Single Surgeon-Experience.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- A Continuum of Interfaces to Engage Surgical Staff in Efficient Collaboration.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- Identifying and reducing risks in functional endoscopic sinus surgery through a hierarchical task analysis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2019Article
- EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- A Digital Patient-Led Hospital Checklist for Enhancing Safety in Cataract Surgery: Qualitative Study.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2018Article
- Transmigration of a retained surgical sponge: a case report.Patient safety in surgery · 2018Article
- Identification of technical errors and hazard zones in sleeve gastrectomy using OCHRA : "OCHRA for sleeve gastrectomy".Surgical endoscopy · 2017Observational
- Where are my instruments? Hazards in delivery of surgical instruments.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the attitude to adverse events has changed from the defensive "blame and shame culture" to an open and transparent healthcare delivery system, it is timely to examine the nature of human errors and their impact on the quality of surgical health care.
methodsThe approach of the review is generic rather than specific, and the account is based on the published psychologic and medical literature on the subject.
conclusionsRather than detailing the various "surgical errors," the concept of error categories within the surgical setting committed by surgeons as front-line operators is discussed. The important components of safe surgical practice identified include organizational structure with strategic control of healthcare delivery, teamwork and leadership, evidence-based practice, proficiency, continued professional development of all staff, availability of wireless health information technology, and well-embedded incident reporting and adverse events disclosure systems. In our quest for the safest possible surgical health care, there is a need for prospective observational multidisciplinary (surgeons and human factors specialists) studies as distinct for retrospective reports of adverse events. There is also need for research to establish the ideal system architecture for anonymous reporting of near miss and no harm events in surgical practice.
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.