ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Process for quality assessment review of societal guidelines-an editorial to accompany "multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)".
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Omentopexy versus no omentopexy in sleeve gastrectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- The patient perspective in benign foregut surgery guidelines: bridging evidence, values, and clinical decision-making.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Gender, racial, and socioeconomic disparity of preoperative optimization goals in ventral hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe SAGES Guidelines Committee has implemented processes for Quality Assessment of SAGES-endorsed guidelines, with the aim of improving the quality of published guidelines.
methodsWe provide details of the processes developed, using standardized tools for assessing the methodological quality of practice guidelines. As an example, we describe the application of our processes to the recent multi-societal GERD consensus guideline.
resultsAssessment of the multi-societal GERD consensus guideline by the iterative processes of SAGES Quality Assurance taskforce improved the quality of the final manuscript in all domains of appraisal. These processes are easily applicable to future guidelines.
conclusionsSuch systems will increase the confidence in SAGES recommendations and increase the implementation of SAGES guidelines. By demonstrating the rigor of Quality Assessment, this confidence also extends to a further increase in the assurance of the publications of the Surgical Endoscopy journal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36577904What 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.