SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023
Methods of quality assurance in multicenter trials in laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting Standards and Quality Assurance Methods for Pancreatoduodenectomy in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Reporting guidelines for chatbot health advice studies: explanation and elaboration for the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOperative performance may affect the internal and external validity of randomized trials. The aim of this study was to review the use of surgical quality assurance mechanisms of published trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery, with the objective to appraise their internal (research quality) and external validity (applicability to the clinical setting).
methodsBuilding upon a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis published by the authors, Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were searched for randomized control trials comparing different methods of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery for the management of gastroesophageal disease. Quality assurance in individual studies was appraised using a specified framework addressing surgeon accreditation, procedure standardization, and performance monitoring.
resultsIn total, 2276 articles were screened to obtain 43 publications reporting 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-five out of 43 (58.1%) articles reported the number of participating centers and surgeons involved. Additionally, only 21/43 (48.8%) of articles reported consistent use of a bougie, while 23/43 (53.5%) of articles reported consistent division of the short gastric arteries during fundoplication. Surgical experience and credentials were stated in half of the studies. Standardization of the technique was reported in almost 70% of cases, whereas operative notes or video was submitted in one fourth of the studies. Monitoring of the operative performance during the trial was not documented in most of the trials (62%).
conclusionSurgical quality assurance in randomized trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is insufficient, which does not allow appraisal of the internal and external validity of this research. With improved reporting, trials assessing the use of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery will enable surgeons to make informed treatment decisions to enhance patient care in the surgical management of GERD.
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.