ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2015
A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital recording and documentation of endoscopic procedures: physicians' practice and perspectives.Israel journal of health policy research · 2019Article
- Digital Recording and Documentation of Endoscopic Procedures: Do Patients and Doctors Think Alike?Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little conclusive evidence exists regarding the best way to educate and evaluate skill acquisition of advanced surgical trainees, despite it being recognised as one of the most important aspects of training. Many laparoscopic trainers have been produced with complex engineering at great cost, but, there seems to be a reluctance to use the most precious entity available to us; the patient. We thus propose the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes. This study was prompted by the lack of literature regarding such issues. A 19 question questionnaire was circulated at a single urology out-patient department (Essex, England) over a 6 month period to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of urological patients on potentially having their procedure digitally recorded for educational and research purposes. 11 patients declined, 187 questionnaires were included in the final analysis. Male patients are more willing to consent than female patients. Older patients resulted to have a higher propensity in being recorded for medical teaching. Greater than 50% believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue. Lastly, the vast majority require a formal debrief post operatively. Our results show that a percentage of the public are potentially willing to be digitally recorded but many financial and social barriers exist. We have also highlighted areas of possible future research, namely the reluctance behind young urology patients to consent and questions regarding how best to educate possible study participants to ensure proper informed consent is gained.
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.