Minimally invasive liver resection: has the time come to consider robotics a valid assistance?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Real-time administration of indocyanine green in combination with computer vision and artificial intelligence for the identification and delineation of colorectal liver metastases.Surgery open science · 2023
   Article
2. Association Between Operative Approach and Venous Thromboembolism Rate Following Hepatectomy: a Propensity-Matched Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
   Article
3. Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma.Annals of gastroenterology
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Setting up a robotic hepatectomy program: a Western-European experience and perspective.2017

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.