Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534076›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

Ten Myths in Nerve Surgery.

Liron S Duraku, Kyle R Eberlin, Amy Moore, Johnny Lu, Tahseen Chaudhry, Samuel George, Abdus S Burahee, J Michiel Zuidam, Jayme Bertelli, Dominic M Power

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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. Article
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

10 authors.

Liron S DurakuFrom the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kyle R EberlinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Amy MooreDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Johnny LuDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Tahseen ChaudhryHand and Peripheral Nerve Surgery Department, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Samuel GeorgeHand and Peripheral Nerve Surgery Department, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Abdus S BuraheeFrom the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Michiel ZuidamDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jayme BertelliDepartment of Surgical Techniques, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Dominic M PowerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Surgical innovation has provided new options for the management of complex peripheral nerve injuries, generating renewed interest in this field. Historic literature may be misinterpreted or misquoted, or create dogma, which is perpetuated in teaching, research publications, and clinical practice. The management of peripheral nerve injuries is based on complex decision-making, with potential lifelong ramifications for patients incorrectly receiving an expectant or surgical management plan. Methods: This article includes opinion from expert leaders in the field of peripheral nerve surgery and questions some of the current assumptions and preconceptions around nerve surgery based on clinical evidence. There was extensive debate regarding the contents of the final article, and the different opinions expressed represent the uncertainty in this field and the differing levels of confidence in available published evidence. Results: Individual practices vary and, therefore, absolute consensus is impossible to achieve. The work is presented as 10 myths which are assessed using both historical and emerging evidence, and areas of uncertainty are discussed. Conclusions: It is important to learn lessons from the past, and scholars of history bear the task of ensuring references are accurately quoted. Expunging myths will enhance care for patients, focus research efforts, and expand on the surgical possibilities within this specialty.

Identifiers

PMID39534076
PMCPMC11557004

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.