Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29201503›Full record

ReviewTurkish journal of urology2017

Animal ethics in laparoscopic urology training.

Eymen Gazel, Ayşegül Özgök, Ahmet Murat Bayraktar, Osman Ergün, Yaşar Özgök

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Turkish journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Survey of Basic Laparoscopic Training Exposure of Nigerian Postgraduate Trainees.Nigerian journal of surgery : official publication of the Nigerian Surgical Research Society
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eymen GazelClinic of Urology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Ayşegül ÖzgökClinic of Anesthesiology, Türkiye Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Ahmet Murat BayraktarClinic of Urology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Osman ErgünClinic of Urology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Yaşar ÖzgökClinic of Urology, Çankaya Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Çankaya University · TRTürkiye Yüksek İhtisas Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laparoscopic urologic operating techniques are in widespread use throughout the world and because of various advantages, over the years they have virtually become a gold standard surgical intervention method. As laparoscopy is a painstaking technique to learn, the training consists of different stages. Within these stages of training, wet laboratory training where animals are used, is the most sensitive stage. The widespread use of experimental animals in medical research necessitated standardization and the establishment of certain regulations. This standardization and organization of laws and regulations started to be discussed in Europe approximately a century ago and have been established on a certain foundation. In this rewiev article, we discuss some important points and ethic rules about laparoscopic urologic training practiced on live animals.

Indexed as

Animal ethiclaparoscopyurologywet laboratory training

Identifiers

PMID29201503
PMCPMC5687203
OpenAlexW2767427095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.