Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33102746›Full record

ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2020

Clinical adoption of robotics in endoscopy: Challenges and solutions.

Hung Leng Kaan, Khek Yu Ho

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Robotics in interventional endoscopy-evolution and the way forward.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Robotic endoscopy in gastroenterology: Has it come of age?JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020
    Article
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

2 authors.

Hung Leng KaanDepartment of General Surgery Ng Teng Fong General Hospital Singapore.
Khek Yu HoDepartment of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2932-1962

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The endoscope was traditionally used as a diagnostic instrument. In past decades, it has increasingly been adapted for therapeutic intents. Subsequently, the master-slave robotic concept was introduced into the field of endoscopy to potentially reduce the difficulty and complication rates of endoscopic therapeutic procedures. As interest in robotic endoscopy intensified, progressively more robotic endoscopic platforms were developed, tested, and introduced. Nevertheless, the future of robotic endoscopy hinges on the ability to meet specific clinical needs of procedurists. Three aspects are vital in ensuring continued success and clinical adoption of the robotic endoscope-demonstration of clinical safety and cost-efficacy of the device, widespread availability of directed training opportunities to enhance technical skills and clinical decision-making capabilities of the procedurist, and continued identification of new clinical applications beyond the current uses of the device. This review provides a brief discussion of the historical development of robotic endoscopy, current robotic endoscopic platforms, use of robotic endoscopy in conventional therapeutic endoscopic procedures, and the future of robotic endoscopy.

Indexed as

flexible endoscopyroboticstherapeutic endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID33102746
PMCPMC7578317

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.