Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28352629›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2017

Contained Morcellation: Review of Current Methods and Future Directions.

Enes Taylan, Cagdas Sahin, Burak Zeybek, Ali Akdemir

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Open, laparoscopic and robotic myomectomies - comparison of outcomesJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Enes TaylanLaboratory of Molecular Reproduction and Fertility Preservation, Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Cagdas SahinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ege University School of Medicine , Izmir , Turkey.
Burak ZeybekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch , Galveston, TX , USA.
Ali AkdemirDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ege University School of Medicine , Izmir , Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Power morcellation of surgical specimen during laparoscopic surgery is a practical technology that provides the opportunity to perform several minimally invasive procedures. However, this technology brought forward additional risks and complications associated with dissemination of both benign and malignant tissues inside the abdominal cavity. Based on startling cases, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a discouraging statement on the use of power morcellators that decreased the number of minimally invasive approaches in the following period. As a response to these concerns and negative impacts of the FDA statement, researchers developed several new approaches resulting in contained or in-bag morcellation methods. In this review, we aimed to discuss these current methods and provide an insight for future developments.

Indexed as

contained morcellationenclosed morcellationhysterectomyin-bag morcellationlaparoscopymyomectomy

Identifiers

PMID28352629
PMCPMC5348539

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.