[Clinical trials in surgery. On the way towards evidence-based surgery].

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Watchful waiting vs surgical repair of oligosymptomatic incisional hernias: Current status of the AWARE study].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
   Trial
2. [Evaluation of the infrastructure for clinical surgical studies in Germany : A nationwide survey of the surgical study network CHIR-Net].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018
   Article
3. Closed cannulation of subclavian vein vs open cut-down of cephalic vein for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: protocol for a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.Systematic reviews · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as