Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32394175›Full record

GuidelineSurgical endoscopy2020

ELSA recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during a community spread pandemic: a centered approach in Asia from widespread to recovery phases.

Asim Shabbir, Raj K Menon, Jyoti Somani, Jimmy B Y So, Mahir Ozman, Philip W Y Chiu, Davide Lomanto

Open access · hybridAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Asim ShabbirDepartment of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Raj K MenonDepartment of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jyoti SomaniDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jimmy B Y SoDepartment of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Mahir OzmanDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Philip W Y ChiuDivision of Upper GI & Metabolic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Davide LomantoDepartment of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Davide_lomanto@nuhs.edu.sg.ORCID 0000-0001-7240-6227
National University Hospital · SGNational University of Singapore · SGChinese University of Hong Kong · HKIstinye University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to surgical practice across the worlds. Some countries are seeing a tailing down of cases, while others are still having persistent and sustained community spread. These evolving disease patterns call for a customized and dynamic approach to the selection, screening, planning, and for the conduct of surgery for these patients.

methodsThe current literature and various international society guidelines were reviewed and a set of recommendations were drafted. These were circulated to the Governors of the Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) for expert comments and discussion. The results of these were compiled and are presented in this paper.

resultsThe recommendations include guidance for selection and screening of patients in times of active community spread, limited community spread, during times of sporadic cases or recovery and the transition between phases. Personal protective equipment requirements are also reviewed for each phase as minimum requirements. Capability management for the re-opening of services is also discussed. The choice between open and laparoscopic surgery is patient based, and the relative advantages of laparoscopic surgery with regard to complications, and respiratory recovery after major surgery has to be weighed against the lack of safety data for laparoscopic surgery in COVID-19 positive patients. We provide recommendations on the operating room set up and conduct of general surgery. If laparoscopic surgery is to be performed, we describe circuit modifications to assist in reducing plume generation and aerosolization.

conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic requires every surgical unit to have clear guidelines to ensure both patient and staff safety. These guidelines may assist in providing guidance to units developing their own protocols. A judicious approach must be adopted as surgical units look to re-open services as the pandemic evolves.

Indexed as

PandemicsAsiaBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansInfection ControlLaparoscopyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperating RoomsPatient SelectionPersonal Protective EquipmentPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2SurgeonsCOVID-19GuidelinesLaparoscopic surgeryMISRecommendationsSurgery

Identifiers

PMID32394175
PMCPMC7212724
OpenAlexW3023856840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.