ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
Heuristics and bias in rectal surgery.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring variation in surgical practice: does surgeon personality influence anastomotic decision-making?The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Risk taking propensity: Nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for diverting ileostomy.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Article
- Evaluating Single-Surgeon Bias Toward Recommending Corrective Procedures for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Based on Demographic Factors and Comorbidities in a 484-Patient Cohort.Global spine journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeciding to defunction after anterior resection can be difficult, requiring cognitive tools or heuristics. From our previous work, increasing age and risk-taking propensity were identified as heuristic biases for surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ), and inversely proportional to the likelihood of creating defunctioning stomas. We aimed to assess these factors for colorectal surgeons in the British Isles, and identify other potential biases.
methodsThe Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) was invited to complete an online survey. Questions included demographics, risk-taking propensity, sensitivity to professional criticism, self-perception of anastomotic leak rate and propensity for creating defunctioning stomas. Chi-squared testing was used to assess differences between ACPGBI and CSSANZ respondents. Multiple regression analysis identified independent surgeon predictors of stoma formation.
resultsOne hundred fifty (19.2%) eligible members of the ACPGBI replied. Demographics between ACPGBI and CSSANZ groups were well-matched. Significantly more ACPGBI surgeons admitted to anastomotic leak in the last year (p < 0.001). ACPGBI surgeon age over 50 (p = 0.02), higher risk-taking propensity across several domains (p = 0.044), self-belief in a lower-than-average anastomotic leak rate (p = 0.02) and belief that the average risk of leak after anterior resection is 8% or lower (p = 0.007) were all independent predictors of less frequent stoma formation. Sensitivity to criticism from colleagues was not a predictor of stoma formation.
conclusionsUnrecognised surgeon factors including age, everyday risk-taking, self-belief in surgical ability and lower probability bias of anastomotic leak appear to exert an effect on decision-making in rectal surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28444507What 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.