Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30920355›Full record

ArticleSoft robotics2019

Soft Robotics in Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Mark Runciman, Ara Darzi, George P Mylonas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Soft robotics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing 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

91 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Soft robotic devices for cardiovascular medicine.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Advances in Techniques in Radical Prostatectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 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.

Mark Runciman1Human-Centred Automation, Robotics and Monitoring in Surgery (HARMS) Lab, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ara Darzi2Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
George P Mylonas1Human-Centred Automation, Robotics and Monitoring in Surgery (HARMS) Lab, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soft robotic devices have desirable traits for applications in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), but many interdisciplinary challenges remain unsolved. To understand current technologies, we carried out a keyword search using the Web of Science and Scopus databases, applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and compared several characteristics of the soft robotic devices for MIS in the resulting articles. There was low diversity in the device designs and a wide-ranging level of detail regarding their capabilities. We propose a standardized comparison methodology to characterize soft robotics for various MIS applications, which will aid designers producing the next generation of devices.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRoboticsSurgery, Computer-Assistedmedical roboticsminimally invasive surgerysoft robots

Identifiers

PMID30920355
PMCPMC6690729

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.