SynthesisBJS open2024
Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Litigation meets evidence: a novel approach to understanding preventable complications in breast reconstruction.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding Past and Present Surgical Registries for Patients with Uterovaginal Prolapse and Planning the Development of a Global Registry.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Workload demands, surgical education and training among resident surgeons in Germany: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Transaxillary valve surgery: innovation through simplicity in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Outcomes after inguinal hernia repair: how strong is the evidence for minimally invasive versus open repair?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Review
- Optimizing AI implementation for surgery: recommendations for infrastructure and deployment in the operating room.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Improving Surgical Innovation: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Perceived Facilitators and Barriers.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Normalization of deviance in neuromodulation for epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2026Review
- Patient perception of robotic-assisted arthroplasty: how confidence in expected outcomes influences recovery.Annals of joint · 2026Article
- Clinical application of digital technology in bone augmentation: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Learning new surgical techniques in low and middle income countries, approval processes, and the impact of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Elevating surgical outcomes: a comprehensive analysis of innovative nursing practices in intraoperative care across diverse specialties.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe haphazard adoption of new surgical technologies into practice has the potential to cause patient harm and there are many misconceptions in the decision-making behind the adoption of new innovations. The aim of this study was to synthesize factors affecting a surgeon's decision to adopt a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed to obtain all studies where surgeon views on the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice have been collected. The databases screened were MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (last accessed October 2022). Innovations covered multiple specialties, including cardiac, general, urology, and orthopaedics. The quality of the papers was assessed using a 10-question Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research.
resultsA total of 26 studies (including 1112 participants, of which 694 were surgeons) from nine countries satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Types of study included semi-structured interviews and focus groups, for example. Themes and sub-themes that emerged after a thematic synthesis were categorized using five causal factors (structural, organizational, patient-level, provider-level, and innovation-based). These themes were further split into facilitators and barriers. Key facilitators to adoption of an innovation include improved clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and support from internal and external stakeholders. Barriers to adoption include lack of organizational support and views of senior surgeons.
conclusionThere are multiple complex factors that dynamically interact, affecting the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice. There is a need to further investigate surgeon and other stakeholder views regarding the strength of clinical evidence required to support the widespread adoption of a surgical innovation into clinical practice.
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.