| Title |
Oversight in Surgical Innovation: A Response to Ethical Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-018-4565-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saksham Gupta, Ivo S. Muskens, Luis Bradley Fandino, Alexander F. C. Hulsbergen, Marike L. D. Broekman |
| Abstract |
Surgical innovation has advanced outcomes in the field, but carries inherent risk for surgeons and patients alike. Oversight mechanisms exist to support surgeon-innovators through difficulties associated with the innovation process. A literature review of ethical risks and oversight mechanisms was conducted. Oversight mechanisms range from the historical concept of surgical exceptionalism to departmental, hospital, and centralized committees. These fragmentary and non-standardized oversight mechanisms leave surgeon-innovators and patients open to significant risk of breaching the ethical principles at the core of surgical practice. A systematized approach that mitigates these risks while maintaining the independence and dignity of the surgical profession is necessary. We propose an oversight framework that incorporates multiple structures tailored toward the ethical risk introduced by different forms of innovation. We summarize ethical risks and current regulatory structures, and we then use these findings to outline an oversight framework that may be applied to surgical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,596,612
of 23,052,509 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,607
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,256
of 333,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#56
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,052,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.