Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24014322›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2014

Surgical process modelling: a review.

Florent Lalys, Pierre Jannin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Action classification for endoscopic pituitary adenoma resection: a consensus-based study.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Please follow the rules: surgical workflow recognition constrained by linear temporal logic.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Towards multimodal graph neural networks for surgical instrument anticipation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Automatic surgical phase recognition-based skill assessment in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy using multicenter videos.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Article
  18. COMPASS: a formal framework and aggregate dataset for generalized surgical procedure modeling.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Florent LalysUniversity of Rennes I, LTSI, 35000 , Rennes, France, flo.lalys@hotmail.fr.
Pierre Jannin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurgery is continuously subject to technological and medical innovations that are transforming daily surgical routines. In order to gain a better understanding and description of surgeries, the field of surgical process modelling (SPM) has recently emerged. The challenge is to support surgery through the quantitative analysis and understanding of operating room activities. Related surgical process models can then be introduced into a new generation of computer-assisted surgery systems.

methodsIn this paper, we present a review of the literature dealing with SPM. This methodological review was obtained from a search using Google Scholar on the specific keywords: "surgical process analysis", "surgical process model" and "surgical workflow analysis".

resultsThis paper gives an overview of current approaches in the field that study the procedural aspects of surgery. We propose a classification of the domain that helps to summarise and describe the most important components of each paper we have reviewed, i.e., acquisition, modelling, analysis, application and validation/evaluation. These five aspects are presented independently along with an exhaustive list of their possible instantiations taken from the studied publications.

conclusionThis review allows a greater understanding of the SPM field to be gained and introduces future related prospects.

Indexed as

Models, AnatomicModels, TheoreticalHumansSurgery, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.