Canadian Vascular Surgeons' perspective on the impact on device representatives in the operating room
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To understand the current attitudes of Canadian vascular surgeons toward device sales representatives (DSRs) and their presence in the operating room (OR) during standard infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) cases. Methods A survey was created using a 5-point Likert response scale related to the perceived benefits and ethical concerns of DSR presence in the OR. Participants were contacted via the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery and were stratified into subgroups based on academic or community setting and duration of practice. Results Of the surveyed members, 68 vascular surgeons responded, yielding a response rate of 40%. Of these, 46 (67.6%) had more than 10 years of experience and 39 (57.4%) worked in academic settings. Overall, participants viewed DSR as having several benefits, including case efficiency, planning, and device-specific knowledge (65.6%, 55.2%, and 82.8%, respectively). The majority did not perceive significant ethical issues (81.8%), although they felt their colleagues were more biased by DSR relationships (74.5%). Of those who did perceive significant ethical issues with DSR presence, a greater proportion were academic (27% vs 5%; P = .04). The majority of surgeons surveyed stated they would continue their practice of having DSR present during standard infrarenal EVARs. However, of those who were likely to discontinue this practice, a greater proportion were also academic (35% vs 4%; P = .01). Duration of practice showed no significant differences with regard to perceived benefits or harms. Conclusions With a few differences based on practice modality, most Canadian vascular surgeons perceive significant benefit to DSR presence during standard EVAR cases. Although some respondents recognize potential areas of bias, they feel they are not as subject to these pressure as their peers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».