Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32429010›Full record

ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2020

The Benefits of Colorectal Surgery Surveys in Australia and New Zealand.

Auerilius Erastus Ricardo Hamilton, Amelia Alice Lin, Christopher John Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Auerilius Erastus Ricardo HamiltonDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Amelia Alice LinDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Christopher John YoungDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePertaining to the Colorectal Surgery Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) Executive and Research Support Committee, this study aimed to assess the usefulness and outcomes of surveys sent out by the society to its members.

methodsFrom 2009 to 2017, CSSANZ members received 38 surveys, most of which were distributed from within the society, and a few of which originated from other affiliated groups. Surveys were categorised by type, topics, times required for completion, delivery method, response rates, and advancement to publication.

resultsOf 38 surveys, 20 (53%) were published and 18 remain unpublished. Four surveys were distributed annually on average, with 2.2 published annually on average, with a mean impact factor of 2.41 ± 1.55. Mean time to publication was 31 ± 17 months. Surveys contributed to 13 publications (34%). The most common survey topics were rectal cancer decisionmaking, in 6 publications (16%), preoperative assessment of colorectal patients, in 5 publications (13%), and anal physiology: continence and defaecation, in 4 publications (11%). Publication of surveys was not related to the number of surveys distributed per year, the number of questions per survey, or the time required by respondents to complete the surveys.

conclusionMost of the CSSANZ-distributed surveys resulted in publications, and one third of the surveys contributed to higher degrees obtained by investigators. These surveys aid research into areas that are otherwise difficult to assess, often indicating areas for future research.

Indexed as

Clinical equipoiseColorectal surgeryQuestionnaireSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32429010
PMCPMC7299568

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.