Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26092000›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2016

Current state of micro-robots/devices as substitutes for screening colonoscopy: assessment based on technology readiness levels.

Silvia C Tapia-Siles, Stuart Coleman, Alfred Cuschieri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Application of micro/nanorobot in medicine.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A hydraulically driven colonoscope.Surgical endoscopy · 2016
    Article
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

3 authors.

Silvia C Tapia-SilesSurgical Technology and Robotics Group, Institute for Medical Science and Technology (IMSaT), University of Dundee, Dundee, DD2 1FD, UK.
Stuart ColemanSurgical Technology and Robotics Group, Institute for Medical Science and Technology (IMSaT), University of Dundee, Dundee, DD2 1FD, UK.
Alfred CuschieriSurgical Technology and Robotics Group, Institute for Medical Science and Technology (IMSaT), University of Dundee, Dundee, DD2 1FD, UK. a.cuschieri@dundee.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious reports have described several candidates, which have the potential to replace colonoscopy, but to date, there is still no device capable of fully replacing flexible colonoscopy in the management of colonic disorders and for mass adult population screening for asymptomatic colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsNASA developed the TRL methodology to describe and define the stages of development before use and marketing of any device. The definitions of the TRLS used in the present review are those formulated by "The US Department of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance" but adapted to micro-robots for colonoscopy. All the devices included are reported in scientific literature. They were identified by a systematic search in Web of Science, PubMed and IEEE Xplore amongst other sources. Devices that clearly lack the potential for full replacement of flexible colonoscopy were excluded. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION: The technological salient features of all the devices included for assessment are described briefly, with particular focus on device propulsion. The devices are classified according to the TRL criteria based on the reported information. An analysis is next undertaken of the characteristics and salient features of the devices included in the review: wireless/tethered devices, data storage-transmission and navigation, additional functionality, residual technology challenges and clinical and socio-economical needs.

conclusionsFew devices currently possess the required functionality and performance to replace the conventional colonoscopy. The requirements, including functionalities which favour the development of a micro-robot platform to replace colonoscopy, are highlighted.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyNanotechnologyAdultColorectal NeoplasmsDiffusion of InnovationEarly Detection of CancerEquipment DesignHumansMass ScreeningRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUnited StatesUnited States National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationColonic locomotionColonoscopyMedical roboticsMicro-robotTechnology readiness level

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.