ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
SAGES guidelines: an appraisal of their quality and value by SAGES members.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines development: standard operating procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee develops evidence-based guidelines for practicing surgeons using standard methodology. Our objective was to survey the SAGES membership regarding guidelines' quality, use, and value and identify topics of interest for new guideline development.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was emailed in October 2019 to SAGES members. Respondents were asked 18 questions on their use and evaluation of SAGES guidelines and SAGES reviews and to provide suggestions for new guideline topics and areas of improvement. The survey was open for 6 weeks with a 3-week reminder.
resultsOf 548 responders, most were minimally invasive (41%) or general surgeons (33%). There was an even distribution between academic (46%) and non-academic practice (24% private practice, 23% hospital employed). Most used SAGES guidelines frequently (22%) or occasionally (68%) and found them to be of value (83%), above average quality (86%), and easy to use (74%). While most stated it was important (35%) or very important (58%) that SAGES continues to follow "rigorous guidelines development processes," common suggestions were for more timely updates and improved web access. Of 442 overlapping topic suggestions, 60% fell into overarching categories of hernia, bariatric, robotic, HPB, and colorectal surgery.
conclusionsThe SAGES guidelines are used frequently and valued by its users for their quality and content. Topics proposed by SAGES members and valuable insight from this survey can guide creation of new guidelines and refinement of established guidelines and processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33528662What 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.