ReviewTechniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy2021
Stay on Top: COVID-19 As an Opportunity to Improve the GI Scientific Career - The Impact on Papers and Literature.
Review in Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main barrier for a young researcher in the field of endoscopy is that too much is known about virtually every aspect not only of the natural history, but also of the efficacy and safety of different Gastrointestinal (GI) techniques. The main fuel for research remains uncertainty, and this has been the primary characteristic of COVID-19. The unprecedented visibility of the main papers on the natural history and medical management of COVID-19 on all the main worldwide medical Journals has had an effect of drainage on the reports of COVID-19 in GI endoscopy, suddenly opening up the interest of main GI journals to this topic. Furthermore, given the nature and the urgency of the topic, these high-ranking journals have accepted study designs outside rigorous randomized controlled trials and/or systematic reviews and meta-analysis, what used to be the "conditio sine qua non" for being considered for publication. Suddenly, rigorous guidelines have been replaced by expert-derived suggestions on the basis that the best possible guidance is better than no guidance. This situation has been a great occasion for young researchers to gain visibility even without having access to the complex means and long time-spans needed to finalize a randomized trial.
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.