ArticleLancet (London, England)2009
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 225 papers, 33 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
225 citing papers in PubMed, 33 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Navigating uncharted territory in surgical innovation: systematic review of non-standard metabolic bariatric surgery procedures.The British journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Stent-Assisted Versus Non-Stent-Assisted Coiling in the Management of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Translational stroke research · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying and reporting modifications to surgical innovation: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.BMJ open quality · 2023Pooled it
- How to assess applicability and methodological quality of comparative studies of operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- Endoscopic Resection Versus Surgery in the Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stent placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Surgical Approaches for Lung Cancer.The Journal of surgical research · 2021Pooled it
- Propensity score matching in otolaryngologic literature: A systematic review and critical appraisal.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic breakdown of the levels of evidence supporting the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2019Pooled it
- Management of Primary Obstructive Megaureter by Endoscopic High-Pressure Balloon Dilatation. IDEAL Framework Model as a New Tool for Systematic Review.Frontiers in surgery · 2019Pooled it
- How does surgery compare to sham surgery or physiotherapy as a treatment for tendinopathy? A systematic review of randomised trials.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? Systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
165 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
49 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.
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.