ReviewBMJ open2022
Identification of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for surgical innovation: a targeted review of case studies of novel surgical devices.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic methodology review of fluorescence-guided cancer surgery to inform the development of a core master protocol and outcome set.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOutcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS.
designA targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices.
methodsElectronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised.
results112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%).
conclusionOutcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices.
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.