SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2017
Objective assessment of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision performance: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting laparoscopic general surgery training with digital technology: The United Kingdom and Ireland paradigm.BMC surgery · 2021Review
- Association of Surgical Skill Assessment With Clinical Outcomes in Cancer Surgery.JAMA surgery · 2020Article
- EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopy is widely used in colorectal practice, but recent trial results have questioned its use in rectal cancer resections. Patient outcomes are directly linked to the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen. Objective assessment of intraoperative performance could help ensure competence and delivery of optimal outcomes. Objective tools may also contribute to TME intervention trials, but their nature, structure and utilisation is unknown.
aimTo systemically review the available literature to report on the available tools for the objective assessment of minimally invasive TME operative performance and their use within multicentre laparoscopic TME randomised controlled trials.
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify tools used in the objective intraoperative assessment of minimally invasive TME performance in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, independently by two authors. The identified tools were then evaluated within reported TME RCTs.
resultsA total of 8642 abstracts were screened of which 12 papers met the inclusion criteria; ten prospective observational studies, one randomised trial and one educational consensus. Eight assessment methods were described, which include formative and summative tools. The tools were mostly adaptations of colonic surgery tools based on either operative video review or post-operative trainer rating. All studies reported objective assessment of intraoperative performance was feasible, but only 126 (7%) of the 1762 included laparoscopic cases were TME. No multicentre laparoscopic TME trial reported using any objective surgical performance assessment tool.
conclusionObjective intraoperative laparoscopic TME performance assessment is feasible, but most of the current tools are adaptation of colonic surgery. There is a need to develop dedicated assessment tools for minimal access rectal surgery. No multicentre minimally invasive TME RCT reported using any objective assessment tool.
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.