Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

Carmelo Quattrone, Wesley M. White, Jeorge Correia-Pinto, Estevão Lima, Riccardo Autorino, Carmelo Quattrone, Rachid Yakoubi, Alessandro Izzo, Carmine Di Palma, Marco De Sio, Matthew Gettman, Jihad H. Kaouk

Risultato della ricerca: Article

27 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities. © 2012 BJU International.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)11-16
Numero di pagine6
RivistaBJU International
Volume111
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery
Bibliometrics
Publications
Cholecystectomy
Laparoscopy
Randomized Controlled Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cita questo

Quattrone, C., White, W. M., Correia-Pinto, J., Lima, E., Autorino, R., Quattrone, C., ... Kaouk, J. H. (2013). Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. BJU International, 111, 11-16.

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. / Quattrone, Carmelo; White, Wesley M.; Correia-Pinto, Jeorge; Lima, Estevão; Autorino, Riccardo; Quattrone, Carmelo; Yakoubi, Rachid; Izzo, Alessandro; Di Palma, Carmine; De Sio, Marco; Gettman, Matthew; Kaouk, Jihad H.

In: BJU International, Vol. 111, 2013, pag. 11-16.

Risultato della ricerca: Article

Quattrone, C, White, WM, Correia-Pinto, J, Lima, E, Autorino, R, Quattrone, C, Yakoubi, R, Izzo, A, Di Palma, C, De Sio, M, Gettman, M & Kaouk, JH 2013, 'Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment', BJU International, vol. 111, pagg. 11-16.
Quattrone C, White WM, Correia-Pinto J, Lima E, Autorino R, Quattrone C e altri. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. BJU International. 2013;111:11-16.
Quattrone, Carmelo ; White, Wesley M. ; Correia-Pinto, Jeorge ; Lima, Estevão ; Autorino, Riccardo ; Quattrone, Carmelo ; Yakoubi, Rachid ; Izzo, Alessandro ; Di Palma, Carmine ; De Sio, Marco ; Gettman, Matthew ; Kaouk, Jihad H. / Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment. In: BJU International. 2013 ; Vol. 111. pagg. 11-16.
@article{2e1250d6226d43edb9bc8524b5a9600a,
title = "Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports{\circledR} journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9{\%}). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9{\%}) and animal experimental (48{\%}), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85{\%}) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4{\%}) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1{\%}). The access routes included transgastric (52.5{\%}), transcolonic (12.3{\%}), transvesical (12.5{\%}), transvaginal (10.5{\%}), and combined (12.3{\%}). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6{\%} vs 7.2{\%}) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6{\%} vs 22.9{\%}) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7{\%} vs 15.6{\%}) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities. {\circledC} 2012 BJU International.",
author = "Carmelo Quattrone and White, {Wesley M.} and Jeorge Correia-Pinto and Estev{\~a}o Lima and Riccardo Autorino and Carmelo Quattrone and Rachid Yakoubi and Alessandro Izzo and {Di Palma}, Carmine and {De Sio}, Marco and Matthew Gettman and Kaouk, {Jihad H.}",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "111",
pages = "11--16",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): Where are we going? A bibliometric assessment

AU - Quattrone, Carmelo

AU - White, Wesley M.

AU - Correia-Pinto, Jeorge

AU - Lima, Estevão

AU - Autorino, Riccardo

AU - Quattrone, Carmelo

AU - Yakoubi, Rachid

AU - Izzo, Alessandro

AU - Di Palma, Carmine

AU - De Sio, Marco

AU - Gettman, Matthew

AU - Kaouk, Jihad H.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities. © 2012 BJU International.

AB - The aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities. © 2012 BJU International.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/117523

M3 - Article

VL - 111

SP - 11

EP - 16

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

ER -