GuidelineSurgical endoscopy2010
EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery.
Guideline in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying and reporting modifications to surgical innovation: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Guideline
- Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).Surgical endoscopy · 2011Guideline
- Balancing Ethics and Innovation: Can Artificial Intelligence Safely Transform Emergency Surgery? A Narrative Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Article
- Early unplanned readmissions following same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Impacted common bile duct stone managed by hepaticoduodenostomy.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Cholecystectomy for Complicated Gallbladder and Common Biliary Duct Stones: Current Surgical Management.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Review
- The scientific report from the first pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures performed in the eastern part of Central Europe.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Article
- Minimally invasive endoscopic thyroid surgery using a collar access: experience in 246 cases with the CEViTS technique.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Review
- Serology and ultrasound for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2014Article
- Approaches to assessing the benefits and harms of medical devices for application in surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2014Review
- Article
- Euro-NOTES Status Paper: from the concept to clinical practice.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: a framework to adapt a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program for other local settings.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnder the mandate of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) a guideline on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery has been developed. The primary focus of this guideline is patient safety, efficacy, and effectiveness.
methodsAn international expert panel was invited to develop recommendations for the assessment and introduction of surgical innovations. A consensus development conference (CDC) took place in May 2009 using the method of a nominal group process (NGP). The recommendations were presented at the annual EAES congress in Prague, Czech Republic, on June 18th, 2009 for discussion and further input. After further Delphi processes between the experts, the final recommendations were agreed upon.
resultsThe development and implementation of innovations in surgery are addressed in five sections: (1) definition of an innovation, (2) preclinical and (3) clinical scientific development, (4) scientific approval, and (5) implementation along with monitoring. Within the present guideline each of the sections and several steps are defined, and several recommendations based on available evidence have been agreed within each category. A comprehensive workflow of the different steps is given in an algorithm. In addition, issues of health technology assessment (HTA) serving to estimate efficiency followed by ethical directives are given.
conclusionsInnovations into clinical practice should be introduced with the highest possible grade of safety for the patient (nil nocere: do no harm). The recommendations can contribute to the attainment of this objective without preventing future promising diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in the field of surgery and allied techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20054575What 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.