Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24818850›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2014

Urological applications of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).

Mark D Tyson, Mitchell R Humphreys

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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. Perseus: perception with semantic endoscopic understanding and SLAM.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2015
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark D TysonDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Mitchell R HumphreysDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LaparoscopyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryAnimalsFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMale Urogenital DiseasesNephrectomyProstatectomyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24818850
OpenAlexW2073094106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.