ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Developing minimally invasive procedure quality metrics: one step at a time.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a High-Fidelity Training Simulator for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Increases Working Knowledge and Technical Skills Among Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Trainees.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Values informing the development of an indicator of appropriate diabetes therapy: qualitative study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Charting a Roadmap for Value-based Surgery in the Post-pandemic Era.Annals of 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 at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite extensive first-hand surgical experience, rank and file members of surgical societies are generally not trained in and have not therefore been included in surgical quality measure development. The purpose of this exercise was to determine if a structured quality metric design tool could bridge this gap, facilitating rapid development of focused quality metrics by minimally invasive surgeon attendees of the April 2018 SAGES Annual Meeting.
methodsExpert minimally invasive surgeons attended a 90-min workshop with didactic and interactive quality metric design sessions during the Annual Meeting. The interactive portion was formed around a novel structured quality measure development tool that graded presenting symptoms, short-term complications, and long-term disutility of care.
resultsFor first-time symptomatic inguinal hernia repair, first-time small to moderate size ventral hernia repair, and elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, each workgroup was able to develop one quality, one short-term complication, and one long-term disutility metric.
conclusionsA structured quality metric design tool facilitates application of knowledge through rapid development of multifaceted, patient-centric outcomes measures by expert minimally invasive surgeons, otherwise not formally trained in metric development. The exercise also highlighted the need to rigorously define denominator populations and to guard against metric-driven undertreatment.
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.