ReviewNature reviews. Urology2014
Urological applications of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perseus: perception with semantic endoscopic understanding and SLAM.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative prediction of the selection of the NOTES approach for patients with symptomatic simple renal cysts via an interpretable machine learning model: a retrospective study of 264 patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Transurethral Anastomosis after Transurethral Radical Prostatectomy: A Phantom Study on Intraluminal Suturing With Concentric Tube Robots.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics · 2020Article
- Applying the vaginal approach for benign ovarian cystectomy: current evidence and future applications.Future science OA · 2020Review
- Adrenal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a step too far?Gland surgery · 2019Review
- Gastrointestinal tract access for urological natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
- Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario.Current urology reports · 2016Review
- The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improvements in surgical techniques, and particularly the development and widespread clinical introduction of laparoscopy in the past two decades, have revolutionized the management of urological disease. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) holds promise in further advancing treatment outcomes in urology. This novel minimally invasive surgical approach can negate the requirement for skin incisions and, therefore, could potentially improve morbidity, convalescence, and cosmesis. After considerable preclinical development, the feasibility of 'hybrid' NOTES-involving concurrent laparoscopy-and 'pure' NOTES nephrectomy and prostatectomy procedures has now been successfully demonstrated in patients with urological conditions, whereas proof-of-concept studies of NOTES partial cystectomy have been performed in animal models. Whether such procedures offer therapeutic and safety benefits compared with traditional laparoscopic techniques remains unknown; indeed, concerns remain over the potential perioperative and postoperative adverse events associated with NOTES, such as incomplete closure of the entry-point incision, infection, and haemorrhage. In particular, however, the requirement for the development of specific rationally designed NOTES instrumentation as well as specially trained, highly skilled personnel to perform the surgery continues to restrict the utility of NOTES. Thus, considerable effort is now needed to shift the focus of research to refining NOTES methodologies to enable translation of these promising proof-of-principle studies into the clinic.
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.