ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
A Novel Individual Mentored Methodology to Peer Review for Residents/Fellows.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individualized guidance and assistance with constructive criticism as a mentored activity to peer review an article helps instill required rudiments, eliminate bad habits, and is shown to be beneficial to all participants. The Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons initiated the R/F article mentoring review opportunity in 2014. The intimacy of actively debated discourse allows exposure to various peer review techniques and debate in tandem with education regarding the merits and faults of an article's hypothesis and conclusions, and how they are evaluated for publication and responses to authors. The benefits of coaching reassessment of ideas, critical analysis, airing of disparate viewpoints; and the need to update, reinforce, and relearn science is not static and is more robust using this method.
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.