Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30826888›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020

Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come.

Riccardo Bertolo, Andrew Hung, Francesco Porpiglia, Pierluigi Bove, Mary Schleicher, Prokar Dasgupta

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Laparoscopic augmented reality registration for oncological resection site repair.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Riccardo BertoloGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 2050 E 96th St, Q Building, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. riccardobertolo@hotmail.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0260-4601
Andrew HungCenter for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Pierluigi BoveUrology Department, "San Carlo di Nancy" Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Mary SchleicherFloyd D. Loop Alumni Library, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Prokar DasguptaKing's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a systematic literature review on the clinical impact of augmented reality (AR) for urological interventions.

methodsAs of June 21, 2018, systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018102194). Only full text articles in English were included, without time restrictions. Articles were considered if they reported on the use of AR during urological intervention and the impact on the surgical outcomes. The risk of bias and the quality of each study included were independently assessed using the standard Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I).

results131 articles were identified. 102 remained after duplicate removal and were critically reviewed for evidence synthesis. 20 studies reporting on the outcomes of the use of AR during urological interventions in a clinical setting were considered. Given the mostly non-comparative design of the studies identified, the evidence synthesis was performed in a descriptive and narrative manner. Only one comparative study was found, with the remaining 19 items being single-arm observational studies. Based on the existing evidence, we are unable to state that AR improves the outcomes of urological interventions. The major limitation of AR-assisted surgery is inaccuracy in registration, translating into a poor navigation precision.

conclusionsTo date, there is limited evidence showing superior therapeutic benefits of AR-guided surgery when compared with the conventional surgical approach to the respective disease.

Indexed as

Augmented RealitySurgery, Computer-AssistedHumansTreatment OutcomeUrologic Surgical ProceduresAugmented realityComputer-assisted surgeryImage-guided surgerySurgical navigationUrology

Identifiers

PMID30826888

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.