ArticleMinimally invasive surgery2012
Patient perceptions of natural orifice translumenal surgery.
Article in Minimally invasive surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Conventional laparoscopy vs. single port surgery from a patient's point of view: influence of demographics and body mass index.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2012Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is on the forefront of surgical technique, but existing research has produced mixed results regarding factors associated with interest in the procedure. Our objective was to ascertain patient opinions at a Canadian centre regarding scarless surgery. A survey comprising demographic data (gender, age, body mass index [BMI]), interest in NOTES, impact of increased risk, as well as importance of further research and shorter recovery time was administered to volunteer patients at outpatient general surgery clinics. Nonparametric tests were utilized to examine difference in response by age, sex, BMI, and preexisting scars. Of the 335 participants (57% female, mean age of 54.5 ± 15.9 years, mean BMI of 28.7 ± 6.9), the majority (83%) showed some interest, but this dropped to 38% when additional risk was factored in. Generally, women, those under 50 years of age and those of healthy weight, were more interested than male, older, and/or heavier patients. Most felt that research into NOTES and reduced length of inpatient stay were important (80% and 95%, respectively). Further investigation into objective NOTES outcomes are needed to provide patients adequate data to make an informed choice regarding surgical route.
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.