Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30079282›Full record

ReviewCureus2018

Telesurgery: Past, Present, and Future.

Paul J Choi, Rod J Oskouian, R Shane Tubbs

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Remote Telesurgery Versus Local Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Comparative Evidence Base.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Paul J ChoiSurgery, Seattle Science Foundation, Seattle, USA.
Rod J OskouianNeurosurgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, USA.
R Shane TubbsNeurosurgery, Seattle Science Foundation, Seattle, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telesurgery uses wireless networking and robotic technology to allow surgeons to operate on patients who are distantly located. This technology not only benefits today's shortage of surgeons, but it also eliminates geographical barriers that prevent timely and high-quality surgical intervention, financial burden, complications, and often risky long-distance travel. The system also provides improved surgical accuracy and ensures the safety of surgeons. In this paper, we describe the current trend of telesurgery's innovative developments and its future.

Indexed as

haptic feedbacklatency timerobotic surgerytelemedicinetelesurgerytravel medicinevirtual interactive presence

Identifiers

PMID30079282
PMCPMC6067812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.