Correction to: e-TEP repair for midline primary and incisional hernia: technical considerations and initial experience.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Comparison of anatomical polyester mesh without fixation and conventional flat mesh with fixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
   Article
2. MIS retromuscular repair of lateral incisional hernia: technological deliberations and short-term outcome.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
   Article
3. Robotic retromuscular abdominal wall repair using an inverted TEP (iTEP) approach: surgical technique and short-term outcomes.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  e-TEP repair for midline primary and incisional hernia: technical considerations and initial experience.2021

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.