Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594169›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2018

Robotic Endoscopy.

Zheng Li, Philip Wai-Yan Chiu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Autonomous Robotic Systems in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Bronchoscopic navigation and tissue diagnosis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Robotic endoscopy. A review of the literature.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2020
    Review
  17. Miniature gastrointestinal endoscopy: Now and the future.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Zheng LiDepartment of Surgery, Chow Yuk Ho Technology Centre for Innovative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special administrative regions of China, China.
Philip Wai-Yan ChiuDepartment of Surgery, Chow Yuk Ho Technology Centre for Innovative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special administrative regions of China, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopes extend the eyes of the physician into the patient's body. They are widely used in gastrointestinal (GI) diagnostics and minimally invasive surgery. Endoscopes can be classified into 3 types: rigid, flexible, and capsule endoscopes. Rigid and flexible endoscopes are traditionally held and manipulated by the physician to visualize the region of interest, while capsule endoscopes move passively along with the GI peristalsis. With the advancement of technology, robotic endoscopy has been increasingly developed and accepted. In this work, robotic endoscopy from 3 categories (robot-assisted rigid endoscopy, robot-assisted flexible endoscopy, and active GI endoscopy including active flexible colonoscopy and active capsule endoscopy) is reviewed by PubMed search with the criteria ('Robotics' OR 'Robot') and ('Endoscopy' OR 'Endoscope').

Indexed as

Capsule endoscopeEndoscopyGastrointestinalRobotics

Identifiers

PMID29594169
PMCPMC5869380

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.