Robotic surgery evaluation: 10 years too late.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring.Nature medicine · 2024
   Review
2. Health-related quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.World journal of urology · 2020
   Article
3. Hyaluronic acid formulation of near infrared fluorophores optimizes surgical imaging in a prostate tumor xenograft.Acta biomaterialia · 2018
   Article
4. [Minimally invasive versus open prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018
   Review
5. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.Surgical endoscopy · 2018
   Review
6. Improved Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost with Minimally Invasive Colon Resection Compared to Open Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.2016
• Comment on
  Innovation and surgical clinical trials.2016

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as