Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32011823›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2020

Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery.

N A Soomro, D A Hashimoto, A J Porteous, C J A Ridley, W J Marsh, R Ditto, S Roy

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07618429 (Control Location Using Two Commands), which is not on this map. Cited by 149 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 18 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.

NCT07618429 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Control Location Using Two Commands: Hand Versus Foot, Workload and Accuracy Response Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Robotic Surgery Simulation

TypeinterventionalSponsorPrince of Songkla UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled86ConditionsNo Disease or Condition is Being Studied, Surgical Procedures, Minimally InvasiveArmsHand Clutch, Foot Clutch
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

149 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Learning curve in robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

89 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

7 authors.

N A SoomroNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
D A HashimotoSurgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
A J PorteousCostello Medical, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2044-5168
C J A RidleyCostello Medical, Cambridge, UK.
W J MarshCostello Medical, Cambridge, UK.
R DittoEthicon, Blue Ash, Ohio, USA.
S RoyEthicon, Blue Ash, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreased uptake of robotic surgery has led to interest in learning curves for robot-assisted procedures. Learning curves, however, are often poorly defined. This systematic review was conducted to identify the available evidence investigating surgeon learning curves in robot-assisted surgery.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2018, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, alongside hand searches of key congresses and existing reviews. Eligible articles were those assessing learning curves associated with robot-assisted surgery in patients.

resultsSearches identified 2316 records, of which 68 met the eligibility criteria, reporting on 68 unique studies. Of these, 49 assessed learning curves based on patient data across ten surgical specialties. All 49 were observational, largely single-arm (35 of 49, 71 per cent) and included few surgeons. Learning curves exhibited substantial heterogeneity, varying between procedures, studies and metrics. Standards of reporting were generally poor, with only 17 of 49 (35 per cent) quantifying previous experience. Methods used to assess the learning curve were heterogeneous, often lacking statistical validation and using ambiguous terminology.

conclusionLearning curve estimates were subject to considerable uncertainty. Robust evidence was lacking, owing to limitations in study design, frequent reporting gaps and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to assess learning curves. The opportunity remains for the establishment of optimal quantitative methods for the assessment of learning curves, to inform surgical training programmes and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Learning CurveClinical CompetenceHumansRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeons

Identifiers

PMID32011823
PMCPMC6996634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.