ArticleGastroenterology report2019
International consensus on natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal cancer.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 76 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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.
A Prospective Clinical Study of Transvaginal Versus Transabdominal Extraction of Laparoscopically-excised Specimen (STTELS)
AP-NOSES: A Prospective, Multicentre Registry of Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Across the Asia-Pacific Region
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Transvaginal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Natural orifice versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Colorectal resection via natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic extraction: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE-LAR) versus abdominal incision specimen extraction (AISE-LAR) for sigmoid or rectal tumors.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic NOSE Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Cosmesis and feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice Specimen extraction (NOSE) for large organ specimen: a prospective pilot study.BMC urology · 2022Trial
- Article
- Observational
- Technique and results of novel intracorporeal "overlap" colorectal anastomosis for laparoscopic and robotic surgery.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Application of double purse-string anastomosis in optimizing laparoscopic NOSES surgery for rectal cancer under the payment system of DRGs.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus totally laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer: a single-centre propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical progress and technological innovations in sphincter-preserving treatment for ultra-low rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction subtotal colectomy for redundant colon: a retrospective parallel-cohort comparative study with reduced surgical site infections and accelerated recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colon Cancer: Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes since the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Trial.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in the treatment of colorectal cancer has attracted widespread attention. The potential benefits of NOSES including reduction in postoperative pain and wound complications, less use of postoperative analgesic, faster recovery of bowel function, shorter length of hospital stay, better cosmetic and psychological effect have been described in colorectal surgery. Despite significant decrease in surgical trauma of NOSES have been observed, the potential pitfalls of this technique have been demonstrated. Particularly, several issues including bacteriological concerns, oncological outcomes and patient selection are raised with this new technique. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to reach a consensus as an industry guideline to standardize the implementation of NOSES in colorectal surgery. After three rounds of discussion by all members of the International Alliance of NOSES, the consensus is finally completed, which is also of great significance to the long-term progress of NOSES worldwide.
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.