Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37638253›Full record

ReviewAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2021

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal.

Stephanie H Greco, Catherine H Davis, Caitlin W Hicks, Alison E Kaye, Jessica E Maxwell, Arghavan Salles, Marion C W Henry

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

7 authors.

Stephanie H GrecoFrom the Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Catherine H DavisDepartment of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX.
Caitlin W HicksDepartment of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Therapy, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Alison E KayeDivision of Plastic Surgery, Children's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO.
Jessica E MaxwellDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Arghavan SallesScholar in Residence, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Marion C W HenryDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee.

Indexed as

critiquereviewsurgical paper

Identifiers

PMID37638253
PMCPMC10455126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.