ArticleYonsei medical journal2012
Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in an endoscopy screening program in Korea.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Pooled it
- Women's Perception of Transgastric and Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) - Impact of Medical Education, Stage of Life and Cross-Cultural Aspects.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- Chinese physician perception of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new method of accessing intracavitary organs in order to minimize pain by avoiding incisions in the body wall. The aim of this study is to determine patients' acceptance of NOTES in Korea and to compare their views about laparoscopic surgery and NOTES for benign and malignant diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe target number of total subjects was calculated to be 540. The subjects were classified into 18 sub-groups based on age groups, gender, and history of prior surgery. The questionnaire elicited information about demographic characteristics, medical check-ups, diseases, endoscopic and surgical histories, marital status and childbirth, the acceptance of NOTES, and the preferred routes for NOTES. In addition, the subjects chose laparoscopic surgery or NOTES for a hypothetical cholecystectomy and rectal cancer surgery, and responded to questions regarding the acceptable complication rate of NOTES, the appropriate cost of NOTES, and the reason(s) why they did not select NOTES.
results486 of 540 patients (90.0%) who agreed to participate in this study completed the questionnaire. NOTES was preferred by the following patients: elderly; a history of treatment due to a disease; having regular check-ups; and a history of an endoscopic procedure (p<0.05). The most preferred route for NOTES was the stomach (67.1%). Eighty-four percent of the patients choosing NOTES responded that the complication rate of the new surgical method should be the same or lower than laparoscopic surgery. Vague anxiety over a new surgical method was the most common reason why NOTES was not selected in benign and malignant diseases (64% and 73%), respectively.
conclusionPatients appear to be interested in the potential benefits of NOTES and would embrace it if their concerns about safety are met. We believe that qualified surgical endoscopists can meet these safety concerns, and that NOTES development has the potential to flourish.
Indexed as
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.