Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24795546›Full record

ArticleGynecological surgery2014

A European survey on awareness of post-surgical adhesions among gynaecological surgeons.

Markus Wallwiener, Philippe Robert Koninckx, Andreas Hackethal, Hans Brölmann, Per Lundorff, Michal Mara, Arnaud Wattiez, Rudy Leon De Wilde, for The Anti-Adhesions in Gynecology Expert Panel (ANGEL)

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecological surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Adhesions and Anti-Adhesion Systems Highlights.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2019
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Markus WallwienerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philippe Robert KoninckxUniversity Hospital Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium.
Andreas HackethalQueensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, Queensland Brisbane, Australia.
Hans BrölmannVU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Per LundorffGynecologic Clinic, Private Hospital Molholm, Vejle, Denmark.
Michal MaraCharles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Arnaud WattiezHôpital de Hautepierre, Strasbourg, France.
Rudy Leon De WildeKlinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Universitätsklinik für Gynäkologie, Pius-Hospital, University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
for The Anti-Adhesions in Gynecology Expert Panel (ANGEL)
Centre for Cancer Biology · AUCharles University · CZHeidelberg University · DEHôpital d'Hautepierre · FRKlinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEKU Leuven · BEVejle Sygehus · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present survey was conducted among gynaecological surgeons from several European countries to assess the actual knowledge and practice related to post-surgical adhesions and measures for reduction. From September 1, 2012 to February 6, 2013, gynaecological surgeons were invited to answer an 18-item online questionnaire accessible through the ESGE website. This questionnaire contained eight questions on care settings and surgical practice and ten questions on adhesion formation and adhesion reduction. Four hundred fourteen surgeons participated; 70.8 % agreed that adhesions are a source of major morbidity. About half of them declared that adhesions represented an important part of their daily medical and surgical work. About two thirds informed their patients about the risk of adhesion. Most cited causes of adhesions were abdominal infections and extensive tissue trauma, and endometriosis and myomectomy surgery. Fewer surgeons expected adhesion formation after laparoscopy (18.9 %) than after laparotomy (40.8 %); 60 % knew the surgical techniques recommended to reduce adhesions; only 44.3 % used adhesion-reduction agents on a regular basis. This survey gives a broad picture of adhesion awareness amongst European gynaecological surgeons, mainly from Germany and the UK. The participants had a good knowledge of factors causing adhesions. Knowledge of surgical techniques recommended and use of anti-adhesion agents developed to reduce adhesions need to be improved.

Indexed as

AwarenessGynaecological surgeryPost-surgical adhesionsPrevention

Identifiers

PMID24795546
PMCPMC4003340
OpenAlexW2079320289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.