Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29327248›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2018

Introducing new technology safely into urological practice.

Siska Van Bruwaene, Benjamin Namdarian, Ben Challacombe, Ben Eddy, Ignace Billiet

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Fiducial markers: can the urologist do better?World journal of urology · 2019
    Article
  4. 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.

Siska Van BruwaeneAZ Groeninge, P. Kennedylaan 5, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. siska.vanbruwaene@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9815-3109
Benjamin NamdarianGuy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' Trust (GSTT), London, UK.
Ben ChallacombeGuy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' Trust (GSTT), London, UK.
Ben EddyKent and Canterbury Hospital, East Kent Hospital Trust (EKHUFT), Canterbury, UK.
Ignace BillietAZ Groeninge, P. Kennedylaan 5, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurgical innovation is necessary to ensure continued improvement in patient care. However, several challenges unique to the surgical craft are encountered during the development and validation of such new technology. This article highlights some of these challenges and gives an overview of existing solutions.

methodsA Pubmed review was performed about the "introduction of new technology" to identify challenges. Cross-referencing was used to explore the possible solutions per challenge.

resultsSeveral characteristics of the surgical craft itself limit our ability to establish randomised controlled trials and hence provide clear categorical evidence. Existing certification bodies for new technology often use unstructured regulations and allow fast-track bypassing systems. Consequently the IDEAL framework (innovation, development, exploration, assessment, long-term follow-up) proposes an objective scientific approach whilst defining stakeholder responsibilities. The selection of which new modality to implement is heavily influenced by third parties unrelated to the best patient outcomes and thus professional organisations can aid in this decision-making. Appropriate training of surgeons and their teams until proficiency is achieved is essential prior to credentialling. Finally long-term surveillance of outcomes in the form of registries is an increasing responsibility of the urological community to maintain our role in directing the adoption or rejection of these innovations.

conclusionUrological innovation is a dynamic and challenging process. Increasing efforts are identified within the urological community to render the process more reliable and transparent.

Indexed as

InventionsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansUrologic Surgical ProceduresDevelopmentImplementationRegulationSurgical innovationTraining

Identifiers

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.