ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Insight into the methodology and uptake of EAES guidelines: a qualitative analysis and survey by the EAES Consensus & Guideline Subcommittee.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee: standard operating procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Guideline
- AGREE-S: AGREE II extension for surgical interventions - United European Gastroenterology and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery methodological guide.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members.
methodsWe invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES.
resultsThree distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups.
conclusionsThe methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.
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.