A prospective qualitative study on patients’ perceptions of endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with pituitary tumours, but no study has explored patients' perceptions before and after this surgery. OBJECTIVE: The authors in this study aim to explore patients' perceptions on endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. METHODS: Using qualitative research methodology, two semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 participants who were adults aged > 18 undergoing endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for the resection of a pituitary tumour between December 2008 and June 2011. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The resulting data was analyzed using a modified thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seven overarching themes were identified: (1) Patients had a positive surgical experience; (2) patients were satisfied with the results of the procedure; (3) patients were initially surprised that neurosurgery could be performed endonasally; (4) patients expected a cure and to feel better after the surgery; (5) many patients feared that something might go wrong during the surgery; (6) patients were psychologically prepared for the surgery; (7) most patients reported receiving adequate pre-op and post-op information. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first qualitative study reporting on patients' perceptions before and after an endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery, which is increasingly used as a standard surgical approach for patients with pituitary tumours. Patients report a positive perception and general satisfaction with the endoscopic transsphenoidal surgical experience. However, there is still room for improvement in post-surgical care. Overall, patients' perceptions can help improve the delivery of comprehensive care to future patients undergoing pituitary tumour surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it