ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[Surgery without anatomy?].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Paradoxical sphincters and cardinal continence function of the gastric fundus].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anatomy is the basis of all operative medicine. While this branch of scientific medicine is frequently not explicitly mentioned in surgical publications, it is nonetheless quintessential to medical education. In the era of video sequences and digitized images, surgical methods are frequently communicated in the form of cinematic documentation of surgical procedures; however, this occurs without the help of explanatory drawings or subtexts that would illustrate the underlying anatomical nomenclature, comment on fine functionally important details or even without making any mention of the surgeon. In scientific manuscripts color illustrations frequently appear in such overwhelming quantities that they resemble long arrays of trophies but fail to give detailed explanations that would aid the therapeutic translation of the novel datasets. In a similar fashion, many anatomy textbooks prefer to place emphasis on illustrations and photographs while supplying only a paucity of explanations that would foster the understanding of functional contexts and thus confuse students and practitioners alike. There is great temptation to repeat existing data and facts over and over again, while it is proportionally rare to make reference to truly original scientific discoveries. A number of examples are given in this article to illustrate how discoveries that were made even a long time ago can still contribute to scientific progress in current times. This includes the NO signaling molecules, which were first described in 1775 but were only discovered to have a pivotal role as neurotransmitters in the function of human paradoxical sphincter muscles in 2012 and 2015. Readers of scientific manuscripts often long for explanations by the numerous silent coauthors of a publication who could contribute to the main topic by adding in-depth illustrations (e. g. malignograms, evolution and involution of lymph node structures).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27251482What 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.