ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Evaluation of the knowledge of the critical view of safety and recognition of the transoperative complexity during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to achieve the critical view of safety for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Technical aspects.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince the establishment of the Critical view of safety (CVS), different strategies have been created such as bailout procedures (SC, subtotal cholecystectomy), classifications for preoperative and intraoperative complexity (The Parkland grading scale, PGS) and objective evaluation of the CVS (doublet score, DS) to establish a "Culture of Safety in Cholecystectomy, COSIC"; to avoid complications.
methodsA multiple choice questionnaire was applied to residents and graduated surgeons from different Hospitals in Mexico during different national meetings; evaluating the knowledge of this different concepts (CVS, SC, PGS, DS), univariate logistic regression was used to assess the association of the knowledge with adverse events (AE) like the Bile duct injury.
resultsA total of 744 questionnaires were evaluated; 284 (38.17%) women and 460 (61.83%) men; 436 (58.6%) were residents and 308 (41.4%) graduated surgeons. 708 (95.16%) reported knowing the CVS; however, only (51.98%, p ≤ 0.001) defined the concept correctly, while 136 (18.28%) reported knowing the DS, but only 44 (5.91%) defined it correctly. Regarding the PGS, 398 (53.49%) mentioned knowing it, but only 262 defined it correctly. The concept of SC 642 (86.29%) reported knowing it; however, only (56.7%, p ≤ 0.001) correctly defined the techniques, being the reconstituting technique the preferred one (42.37% vs 34.89%). In this survey, the correct knowledge of the CVS (OR 0.47, p < 0.001), the subtotal techniques (OR 0.71 p = 0.07), the DS (OR 0.48 p < 0.001) and of the PGS (OR 0.28, p < 0.001) decreased the risk of presenting BDI.
conclusionDespite the COSIC and the timing of publication of the CVS; the percentage of people who can correctly define basic safety concepts is low among residents and licensed surgeons. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the dissemination of these concepts to obtain safe LC and thus reduce the incidence of complications.
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.