Progress in evidence based reproductive surgery.

J Bosteels, S Weyers, C Siristatidis, S Bhattacharya, T D'Hooghe

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

J BosteelsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imeldahospitaal, Imeldalaan 9, 2820 Bonheiden, Belgium ; CEBAM, Centre for evidence-based medicine, the Belgian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration, Capucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

S WeyersUniversitaire Vrouwenkliniek, University Hospital Gent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium.

C SiristatidisAssisted Reproduction Unit, 3rd Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Attikon" University Hospital, Athens, Greece.

S BhattacharyaAberdeen Maternity Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.

T D'HoogheDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) was introduced in 1996 to improve the methodological quality of published reports of randomised controlled trials. By doing a systematic review of randomised controlled trials on reproductive surgery, our group can demonstrate that the overall quality of the published reports of randomised studies on reproductive surgical interventions has improved after CONSORT. Nevertheless, some problems still -remain. By discussing the benefits and pitfalls of randomised trials in reproductive surgery, our opinion paper aims to stimulate the reader's further interest in evidence-based practice in reproductive surgery.

Indexed as

Evidence-based medicinerandomised controlled trialsreproductive surgery

Identifiers

PMID24753872

PMCPMC3987467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

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.