ReviewPloS one2019
RETRACTED: How well do software assistants for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy meet surgeon information needs? A cognitive task analysis and literature review study.
Review in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Laparoscopic augmented reality registration for oncological resection site repair.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-04-28Compromised Peer Review · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntraoperative software assistance is gaining increasing importance in laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Within the user-centred development process of such systems, the first question to be asked is: What information does the surgeon need and when does he or she need it? In this article, we present an approach to investigate these surgeon information needs for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and compare these needs to the relevant surgical computer assistance literature. MATERIALS AND
methodsFirst, we conducted a literature-based hierarchical task analysis of the surgical procedure. This task analysis was taken as a basis for a qualitative in-depth interview study with nine experienced surgical urologists. The study employed a cognitive task analysis method to elicit surgeons' information needs during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Finally, a systematic literature search was conducted to review proposed software assistance solutions for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. The review focused on what information the solutions present to the surgeon and what phase of the surgery they aim to support.
resultsThe task analysis yielded a workflow description for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. During the subsequent interview study, we identified three challenging phases of the procedure, which may particularly benefit from software assistance. These phases are I. Hilar and vascular management, II. Tumour excision, and III. Repair of the renal defects. Between these phases, 25 individual challenges were found which define the surgeon information needs. The literature review identified 34 relevant publications, all of which aim to support the surgeon in hilar and vascular management (phase I) or tumour excision (phase II).
conclusionThe work presented in this article identified unmet surgeon information needs in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Namely, our results suggest that future solutions should address the repair of renal defects (phase III) or put more focus on the renal collecting system as a critical anatomical structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.