ReviewAnnals of coloproctology2017
The Future Medical Science and Colorectal Surgeons.
Review in Annals of coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of diets delivered into the gastrointestinal tract on gut motility after colorectal surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2019Pooled it
- Surgical safety in the COVID-19 era: present and future considerations.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Review
- Modern Machine Learning Practices in Colorectal Surgery: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Development of artificial intelligence technology in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
- Application and Prospect of a Mobile Hospital in Disaster Response.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Future medical technology breakthroughs will build from the incredible progress made in computers, biotechnology, and nanotechnology and from the information learned from the human genome. With such technology and information, computer-aided diagnoses, organ replacement, gene therapy, personalized drugs, and even age reversal will become possible. True 3-dimensional system technology will enable surgeons to envision key clinical features and will help them in planning complex surgery. Surgeons will enter surgical instructions in a virtual space from a remote medical center, order a medical robot to perform the operation, and review the operation in real time on a monitor. Surgeons will be better than artificial intelligence or automated robots when surgeons (or we) love patients and ask questions for a better future. The purpose of this paper is looking at the future medical science and the changes of colorectal surgeons.
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.