ArticleBJS open2018
Creation of a universal language for surgical procedures using the step-by-step framework.
Article in BJS open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart glasses-assisted telementoring in inguinal hernia repair: a new frontier in surgical training?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Weakly supervised pre-training for surgical step recognition using unannotated and heterogeneously labeled videos.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- COMPASS: a formal framework and aggregate dataset for generalized surgical procedure modeling.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023Article
- Using the language of surgery to enhance ophthalmology surgical education.Surgery open science · 2023Review
- Learning inguinal hernia repair? A survey of current practice and of preferred methods of surgical residents.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Validity of a low-cost Lichtenstein open inguinal hernia repair simulation model for surgical training.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLearning of surgical procedures is traditionally based on a master-apprentice model. Segmenting procedures into steps is commonly used to achieve an efficient manner of learning. Existing methods of segmenting procedures into steps, however, are procedure-specific and not standardized, hampering their application across different specialties and thus worldwide uptake. The aim of this study was to establish consensus on the step-by-step framework for standardizing the segmentation of surgical procedures into steps.
methodsAn international expert panel consisting of general, gastrointestinal and oncological surgeons was approached to establish consensus on the preciseness, novelty, usefulness and applicability of the proposed step-by-step framework through a Delphi technique. All statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale. A statement was accepted when the lower confidence limit was 3·00 or more. Qualitative comments were requested when a score of 3 or less was given.
resultsIn round one, 20 of 49 experts participated. Eighteen of 19 statements were accepted; the 'novelty' statement needed further exploration (mean 3·05, 95 per cent c.i. 2·45 to 3·65). Based on the qualitative comments of round one, five clarifying statements were formulated for more specific statements in round two. Twenty-two experts participated and accepted all statements.
conclusionThe international expert panel consisting of general, gastrointestinal and oncological surgeons supported the preciseness, usefulness and applicability of the step-by-step framework. This framework creates a universal language by standardizing the segmentation of surgical procedures into step-by-step descriptions based on anatomical structures, and may facilitate education, communication and assessment.
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.