Trial reportImplementation science : IS2014
Integration of robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration, and decision making: a realist process evaluation protocol.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Communication in Robotic Surgery and Surgical Outcomes.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsTrial
- Logistic challenges in implementing a multispecialty robotic surgery program at university hospitals.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Team members' reflections in debriefings after simulated robot-assisted surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- IDEAL-compliant implementation of the DexterInnovative surgical sciences · 2025Article
- Implementation Science in Breast Reconstruction: A Guide to Closing the Research-to-practice Gap.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Use of the Symani® microscopic surgical robot in hand surgery and operating room setup.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- A Handheld Robot for Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Updated Preclinical Validation Study (IDEAL Stage 0).Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2025Article
- Human Factors Integration in Robotic Surgery.Human factors · 2024Review
- Article
- Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Expenditures and Utilization Following Minimally Invasive vs Open Nephrectomy.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
- Frontiers in human factors: embedding specialists in multi-disciplinary efforts to improve healthcare.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Article
- An Evaluation of Human Conversational Preferences in Social Human-Robot Interaction.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2021Article
- 'Rise of the Machines': Human Factors and training for robotic-assisted surgery.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2021Article
- Implementing large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives: a realist study protocol for seven natural experiments.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies 'in the Wild'.Applied ergonomics · 2019Review
- Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- The challenge of complexity in evaluating health policies and programs: the case of women's participatory groups to improve antenatal outcomes.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Evaluating the implementation of a national clinical programme for diabetes to standardise and improve services: a realist evaluation protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery offers many potential benefits for patients. While an increasing number of healthcare providers are purchasing surgical robots, there are reports that the technology is failing to be introduced into routine practice. Additionally, in robotic surgery, the surgeon is physically separated from the patient and the rest of the team, with the potential to negatively impact teamwork in the operating theatre. The aim of this study is to ascertain: how and under what circumstances robotic surgery is effectively introduced into routine practice; and how and under what circumstances robotic surgery impacts teamwork, communication and decision making, and subsequent patient outcomes. METHODS AND
designWe will undertake a process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Realist evaluation provides an overall framework for the study. The study will be in three phases. In Phase I, grey literature will be reviewed to identify stakeholders' theories concerning how robotic surgery becomes embedded into surgical practice and its impacts. These theories will be refined and added to through interviews conducted across English hospitals that are using robotic surgery for rectal cancer resection with staff at different levels of the organisation, along with a review of documentation associated with the introduction of robotic surgery. In Phase II, a multi-site case study will be conducted across four English hospitals to test and refine the candidate theories. Data will be collected using multiple methods: the structured observation tool OTAS (Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery); video recordings of operations; ethnographic observation; and interviews. In Phase III, interviews will be conducted at the four case sites with staff representing a range of surgical disciplines, to assess the extent to which the results of Phase II are generalisable and to refine the resulting theories to reflect the experience of a broader range of surgical disciplines. The study will provide (i) guidance to healthcare organisations on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation and integration of robotic surgery, and (ii) guidance on how to ensure effective communication and teamwork when undertaking robotic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.