Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209563›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2020

Cost, training and simulation models for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology.

F O'Kelly, W A Farhat, M A Koyle

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Robotically Assisted Surgery in Children-A Perspective.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

F O'KellyDivision of Pediatric Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. fokelly@rcsi.ie.
W A FarhatDivision of Pediatric Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
M A KoyleDivision of Pediatric Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLaparoscopic procedures in pediatric urology have been shown to be safe and effective over the last number of years. Coupled with this is the technological trend to provide minimally invasive options for even the most complex pediatric patients. Whilst robotic platforms continue to try to demonstrate superior patient outcomes in adults with mixed results, the utilization of robotic platforms for pediatric urology is increasing.

methodsA review of the current literature was undertaken to assess the evidence for training models and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted pediatric urology.

conclusionsA growing body of evidence in this field has demonstrated that robotic platforms are safe and effective in children and can provide additional reconstructive benefits due to motion scaling, magnification, stereoscopic views, instrument dexterity and tremor reduction. The main drawbacks remain the financial implications associated with this platform through purchase, maintenance, and disposable costs. This review addresses some of the addresses issues pertaining to cost, training and simulation for robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric urology.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, EducationalSimulation TrainingPediatricsRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologyCostPediatric urologyRoboticsSimulationTraining

Identifiers

PMID31209563

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.