Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22170394›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2012

Obese women's perception of bariatric trans-vaginal NOTES.

Stefano Rocchietto, Gitana Scozzari, Alberto Arezzo, Mario Morino

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefano RocchiettoDigestive, Colorectal and Minimal Invasive Surgery Centre, Department of Surgery, University of Torino, C.so A.M. Dogliotti, 14-10126, Turin, Italy.
Gitana Scozzari
Alberto Arezzo
Mario Morino
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much of the discussion pertaining to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) focuses on technical issues, with little attention to women's perception and to their willingness to consent to this surgery, especially in the field of obesity. Aim of this study was to evaluate obese women's perception of NOTES and trans-vaginal access. Sixty two obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery were given a written description of NOTES with an anonymous questionnaire exploring their concerns and opinions regarding this technique. The risk of complications was the most important aspect with regard to surgical procedures for 87.1% of patients, while the aesthetic result counted only for 16.1%; none of the patients would accept an increased risk of surgical complications for a better aesthetic result, and 74.2% of them would prefer a standardized traditional surgical approach. Nulliparous women were more concerned about the potentially negative effects of NOTES on fertility than multiparous women and younger women were more worried about the effects on sexual function than older women. 83.9% of patients refusing NOTES stated that the main reason for their refusal was the lack of definitive data on the beneficial effects. Bariatric NOTES potentially offers obese women a scarless intervention, but only a few obese women expressed worries about the cosmetic/aesthetic effects of surgery, while most of them were worried about effects on future fertility and sexual life. Our study highlights a strong need for early reporting of outcome data to enlighten patients about this new approach to bariatric surgery.

Indexed as

Natural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryVaginaAdolescentAdultAge FactorsBariatric SurgeryEstheticsFemaleHumansInfertility, FemaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatientsPerceptionPostoperative ComplicationsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22170394
OpenAlexW2055640499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.