Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21483624›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2011

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: progress in humans since white paper.

Byron F Santos, Eric S Hungness

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04886791 (Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted NOTES Hysterectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04886791 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Assisted NOTES Hysterectomy (VANH): a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorZuyderland Medisch CentrumRan2021 to 2025Enrolled124ConditionsHysterectomy, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, Vaginal HysterectomyArmsVaginal NOTES hysterectomy, Vaginal hysterectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Byron F Santos
Eric S Hungness
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first description of the concept of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), a substantial number of clinical NOTES reports have appeared in the literature. This editorial reviews the available human data addressing research questions originally proposed by the white paper, including determining the optimal method of access for NOTES, developing safe methods of lumenal closure, suturing and anastomotic devices, advanced multitasking platforms, addressing the risk of infection, managing complications, addressing challenges with visualization, and training for NOTES procedures. An analysis of the literature reveals that so far transvaginal access and closure appear to be the most feasible techniques for NOTES, with a limited, but growing transgastric, transrectal, and transesophageal NOTES experience in humans. The theoretically increased risk of infection as a result of NOTES procedures has not been substantiated in transvaginal and transgastric procedures so far. Development of suturing and anastomotic devices and advanced platforms for NOTES has progressed slowly, with limited clinical data on their use so far. Data on the optimal management and incidence of intraoperative complications remain sparse, although possible factors contributing to complications are discussed. Finally, this editorial discusses the likely direction of future NOTES development and its possible role in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cross InfectionEducation, MedicalEndoscopesHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryPeritoneumPostoperative ComplicationsComplicationsEndoscopicNatural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgeryOutcomesSurgery

Identifiers

PMID21483624
PMCPMC3072628
OpenAlexW2133952940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.