ArticleJRSM short reports2010
Minor surgery activity in primary care.
Article in JRSM short reports, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two decades of dental malpractice litigations in Türkiye: a retrospective matched cohort study analyzing legal and clinical outcomes.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A cross sectional study of surgical training among United Kingdom general practitioners with specialist interests in surgery.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Simulation-based cutaneous surgical-skill training on a chicken-skin bench model in a medical undergraduate program.Indian journal of dermatology · 2013Article
- Evaluation of reprocessing medical devices in 14 German regional hospitals and at 27 medical practitioners' offices within the European context - consequences for European harmonization.GMS hygiene and infection control · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the activity in our Outpatient Minor Surgery unit during its first five-year period.
designRetrospective descriptive study.
methodsIt was carried out in two centres of a Basic Health Area with a catchment area of 73,000 inhabitants.
participantsPatients who underwent surgery from January 2002 to December 2007 were included in the research.
main outcome measuresInformation on the sociodemographic data of the patients, characteristics of the lesions, risk factors, treatment and its complications was gathered.
resultsA total of 2317 surgical procedures was performed on 1520 patients. The mean was 46 years old and 52% were men. The concordance between clinical and anatomopathological diagnosis was 81%. There were complications in 5% of them. The main pathologies were: epidermoid cysts (22%), nevus (20%) and fibromas (18%). They were mainly located in the back (24%), superior extremities (14%) and head (11%). In 73% mepivicaine was used as anaesthetic. The most current techniques used were: incision (36%), curettage (33%) and fusiform excision (28%). Less than 1% had malignant lesions, 50% of which were not diagnosed clinically. The mean waiting time was 30 days. Ninety-two percent had the informed consent.
conclusionsMinor surgery in primary care is feasible and has a good clinicopathological concordance and minimum complications, but some malignant lesions are overlooked in the diagnosis based exclusively on clinical criteria.
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.