Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25159629›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2015

Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES.

Philip H Pucher, Mikael H Sodergren, Amy C Lord, Julian Teare, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [NOTES in visceral surgery : Current status].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  3. [Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Philip H PucherDepartment of Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Mikael H Sodergren
Amy C Lord
Julian Teare
Guang-Zhong Yang
Ara Darzi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe full scope of benefits offered by NOTES over traditional laparoscopy, if any, is not yet fully clear. Perceived patient demand for truly "scarless surgery" is often referenced one of the driving factors in the continued development of this relatively new technique. The true scale of patient preference and demand for NOTES as a surgical technique is unknown. This review aims to summarise currently available literature on the topic of patient perceptions of NOTES to guide future development of the technique.

methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases was performed on 1st Jan 2014. To be considered for inclusion, articles were required to assess and report the perception of NOTES in a sample of laypersons (patients or general public). The primary endpoint assessed was acceptance or preference rates expressed by patients for NOTES procedures. Reasons given for preference or rejection of NOTES were recorded, as well as preferred access routes and any predicting factors of NOTES acceptance.

resultsInitial search returned 1,334 results, resulting in 15 articles included in final data synthesis. These polled a total of 4,420 subjects. Acceptance of NOTES ranged between 41 and 84 %. Compared to a laparoscopic approach, preference rates for NOTES ranged from 0 to 78 %. Reasons for preferring NOTES were largely centred on potentially reduced recovery time, complications (particularly with reference to hernias) and postoperative pain. Improved cosmesis also played a role, but was secondary to the above issues. Overall, study quality was poor.

conclusionsThis review suggests significant public interest in NOTES and scarless surgery in general. Further research and consideration of differences in public perceptions across regions, countries and cultures are required.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryPatient PreferenceHumansLaparoscopy

Identifiers

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.