Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25614832›Full record

ReviewMinimally invasive surgery2014

Transvaginal appendectomy: a systematic review.

Mehmet Ali Yagci, Cuneyt Kayaalp

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Minimally invasive surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. [Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Transvaginal extraction of laparoscopic liver resection specimen.Interventional medicine & applied science · 2017
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The research conundrum of acute appendicitis.The British journal of surgery · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Ali YagciDepartment of Surgery, Turgut Ozal Medical Center, Inonu University, 44315 Malatya, Turkey.
Cuneyt KayaalpDepartment of Surgery, Turgut Ozal Medical Center, Inonu University, 44315 Malatya, Turkey.
Inonu University · TRTurgut Özal Tıp Merkezi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a new approach that allows minimal invasive surgery through the mouth, anus, or vagina. Objective. To summarize the recent clinical appraisal, feasibility, complications, and limitations of transvaginal appendectomy for humans and outline the techniques. Data Sources. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google-Scholar, EBSCO, clinicaltrials.gov and congress abstracts, were searched. Study Selection. All related reports were included, irrespective of age, region, race, obesity, comorbidities or history of previous surgery. No restrictions were made in terms of language, country or journal. Main Outcome Measures. Patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, and results. Results. There were total 112 transvaginal appendectomies. All the selected patients had uncomplicated appendicitis and there were no morbidly obese patients. There was no standard surgical technique for transvaginal appendectomy. Mean operating time was 53.3 minutes (25-130 minutes). Conversion and complication rates were 3.6% and 8.2%, respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 1.9 days. Limitations. There are a limited number of comparative studies and an absence of randomized studies. Conclusions. For now, nonmorbidly obese females with noncomplicated appendicitis can be a candidate for transvaginal appendectomy. It may decrease postoperative pain and enable the return to normal life and work off time. More comparative studies including subgroups are necessary.

Identifiers

PMID25614832
PMCPMC4295586
OpenAlexW2093414588

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.