Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31112294›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of surgery2019

Legal perspectives on black box recording devices in the operating environment.

A S H M van Dalen, J Legemaate, W S Schlack, D A Legemate, M P Schijven

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reply to Coelho-Prabhu et al.Endoscopy international open · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Video recording in GI endoscopy.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Characterizing nursing time with patients using computer vision.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Intraoperative video recording in otolaryngology for surgical education: evolution and considerations.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

A S H M van DalenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J LegemaateDepartment of Public Health and Health Law, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
W S SchlackDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
D A LegemateDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M P SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA video and medical data recorder in the operating theatre is possible, but concerns over privacy, data use and litigation have limited widespread implementation. The literature on legal considerations and challenges to overcome, and guidelines related to use of data recording in the surgical environment, are presented in this narrative review.

methodsA review of PubMed and Embase databases and Cochrane Library was undertaken. International jurisprudence on the topic was searched. Practice recommendations and legal perspectives were acquired based on experience with implementation and use of a video and medical data recorder in the operating theatre.

resultsAfter removing duplicates, 116 citations were retrieved and abstracts screened; 31 articles were assessed for eligibility and 20 papers were finally included. According to the European General Data Protection Regulation and US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, researchers are required to make sure that personal data collected from patients and healthcare professionals are used fairly and lawfully, for limited and specifically stated purposes, in an adequate and relevant manner, kept safe and secure, and stored for no longer than is absolutely necessary. Data collected for the sole purpose of healthcare quality improvement are not required to be added to the patient's medical record.

conclusionTransparency on the use and purpose of recorded data should be ensured to both staff and patients. The recorded video data do not need to be used as evidence in court if patient medical records are well maintained. Clear legislation on data responsibility is needed to use the medical recorder optimally for quality improvement initiatives.

Indexed as

HumansMedical ErrorsOperating RoomsPatient SafetyPrivacySafety ManagementSurgical Procedures, OperativeVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID31112294
PMCPMC6790687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.