ArticleThe British journal of surgery2025
Information standards for innovative surgery: what patients need to know.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Navigating uncharted territory in surgical innovation: systematic review of non-standard metabolic bariatric surgery procedures.The British journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are repeated and ongoing failures in shared decision-making and informed consent for innovative surgical procedures. Governments and regulatory bodies internationally recommend establishing information standards to support safe and transparent surgical innovation. The aim of this study was to develop a core information set (CIS) for surgical innovation.
methodsThis was a mixed-method study in three phases: a provisional CIS was generated from multiple data sources (interviews with patients/professionals (44), recorded consultations (34), policy documents (58), and published studies (213)) using qualitative content analysis; the CIS was refined, with input from key stakeholders (patient representatives, surgeon innovators, anaesthetists, lawyers, ethicists, medical directors, academic experts, and regulatory representatives) using a modified nominal group technique; and the CIS was finalized through public consultation.
resultsThe final CIS comprised seven themes that included: what is 'new' about the procedure; potential conflicts of interest; reasons for the innovation (including why the innovation is believed to be appropriate for the patient); treatment alternatives; unknowns (including uncertain safety/efficacy and that the procedure may be abandoned/modified); expertise with the innovation; and governance, oversight, and accountability (including how safety will be monitored and recompense if anything goes wrong). Two themes require follow-up discussions after the procedure.
conclusionA seven-theme CIS for surgical innovation was co-developed, with input from key stakeholders. International implementation of these information standards may support safe and transparent surgical innovation.
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.