Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825118›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of surgery protocols2021

Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol.

Christin Hoffmann, Sina Hossaini, Sian Cousins, Natalie Blencowe, Angus G K McNair, Jane M Blazeby, Kerry N L Avery, Shelley Potter, Rhiannon Macefield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of surgery protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Christin HoffmannNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6293-3813
Sina HossainiNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8122-5321
Sian CousinsNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0088-841X
Natalie BlencoweNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6111-2175
Angus G K McNairNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2601-9258
Jane M BlazebyNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-3330
Kerry N L AveryNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5477-2418
Shelley PotterNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6977-312X
Rhiannon MacefieldNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Surgical Innovation Theme), Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6606-5427

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInnovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices. HIGHLIGHTS: This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

Indexed as

InnovationModificationsOperativeProceduresReviewSurgery

Identifiers

PMID34825118
PMCPMC8588892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.