ReviewObstetrics and gynecology2014
Milestones to optimal adoption of robotic technology in gynecology.
Review in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Initial experience with a robotic hepatectomy program at a high-volume laparoscopic center: single-center experience and surgical tips.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Using Technology to Improve Women's Health Care.Ochsner journal · 2020Review
- Robot-assisted gallbladder-preserving hepatectomy for treating S5 hepatoblastoma in a child: A case report and review of the literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Minimally invasive technology, especially robotics, is gaining widespread acceptance and is becoming the standard approach for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions in centers across the country. However, there are challenges on a systems-based level to the implementation of a robotic program. Prominent among the concerns is the length of the learning curve, team-building, quality of life, and financial and various organizational challenges. The purpose of this review article is to address those challenges as milestones on the progress to a successful robotics program and explore possible solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24463658What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.