Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29478224›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018

Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Nathan Lo, Jorge Antonio Gutierrez, Rajesh V Swaminathan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. [Master manipulator of vascular intervention surgical robot based on haptic feedback].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Cardiac X-ray image-based haptic guidance for robot-assisted coronary intervention: a feasibility study.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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.

Nathan LoDuke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Jorge Antonio GutierrezDuke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Rajesh V SwaminathanDuke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. rajesh@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe goal of this review is to describe the benefits and limitations of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the most important and recent clinical data, and the future applications as robotic technology continues to develop. RECENT

findingsRobotic-assisted PCI can reduce occupational hazards of ionizing radiation exposure and orthopedic injury to the interventional cardiologist while offering increased precision and fine control that may confer benefit to the patient. Recent studies have suggested the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted PCI, yet widespread use of the technology has not been fully adopted due to limitations of the current technology and high costs. Robotic-assisted PCI has potential to benefit both the operator and the patient. Despite some limitations of robotic-assisted PCI, it can safely and effectively be used in many patients with coronary artery disease requiring PCI. The value proposition for robotic-assisted PCI will depend on the evolution of robotic systems and its applicability to more complex coronary lesions, peripheral arterial interventions, and telemedicine.

Indexed as

Occupational hazardPercutaneous coronary interventionRoboticTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29478224

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.