Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31637037›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019

Methodology and timing of standardization.

Luca Bertolaccini, Gaetano Rocco

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Luca BertolacciniDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Maggiore Teaching Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Gaetano RoccoDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USOspedale Maggiore Carlo Alberto Pizzardi · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, uniportal VATS has increasingly been used for major lung resections as it has revolutionised the way thoracic surgeons treat pulmonary lesions. Uniportal VATS has represented an authentic innovation in thoracic surgery because it represents an ideal link between reduced morbidity and enhanced recovery. From the first feasibility studies, Uniportal VATS has been assessed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and overall oncologic value yielding similar outcomes compared to open thoracotomy or three-port VATS. The Uniportal VATS Interest Group (UVIG) is a working group inside the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) with a particular interest in Uniportal VATS as the preferred approach to intrathoracic conditions amenable to surgical diagnosis and treatment. The first aim of UVIG was to define a consensus statement on the indications and techniques of uniportal VATS. The first consensus paper among international experts in uniportal VATS lobectomy was obtained through a Delphi process through three rounds of voting to enhance its validity. The Delphi process was used to define the procedure and to optimise the indications, perioperative management and training of Uniportal VATS. The main features of this process including the anonymity of participants, the iterative process, and, controlled feedback were reported in the consensus statement.

Indexed as

Delphi techniquelung cancermethodologyUniportal VATS

Identifiers

PMID31637037
PMCPMC6783712
OpenAlexW2919066939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.