Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398560›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2021

Deep learning visual analysis in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Roi Anteby, Nir Horesh, Shelly Soffer, Yaniv Zager, Yiftach Barash, Imri Amiel, Danny Rosin, Mordechai Gutman, Eyal Klang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Deep learning in voice analysis for diagnosing vocal cord pathologies: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Roi AntebyFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. roianteby@mail.tau.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0567-0655
Nir HoreshFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shelly SofferFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yaniv ZagerFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yiftach BarashFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Imri AmielFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Danny RosinFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Mordechai GutmanFaculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eyal KlangDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Institute for Healthcare Delivery Science, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past decade, deep learning has revolutionized medical image processing. This technique may advance laparoscopic surgery. Study objective was to evaluate whether deep learning networks accurately analyze videos of laparoscopic procedures.

methodsMedline, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and the Web of science databases were searched from January 2012 to May 5, 2020. Selected studies tested a deep learning model, specifically convolutional neural networks, for video analysis of laparoscopic surgery. Study characteristics including the dataset source, type of operation, number of videos, and prediction application were compared. A random effects model was used for estimating pooled sensitivity and specificity of the computer algorithms. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated by the bivariate model of Reitsma.

resultsThirty-two out of 508 studies identified met inclusion criteria. Applications included instrument recognition and detection (45%), phase recognition (20%), anatomy recognition and detection (15%), action recognition (13%), surgery time prediction (5%), and gauze recognition (3%). The most common tested procedures were cholecystectomy (51%) and gynecological-mainly hysterectomy and myomectomy (26%). A total of 3004 videos were analyzed. Publications in clinical journals increased in 2020 compared to bio-computational ones. Four studies provided enough data to construct 8 contingency tables, enabling calculation of test accuracy with a pooled sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.85-0.97) and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.84-0.99). Yet, the majority of papers had a high risk of bias.

conclusionsDeep learning research holds potential in laparoscopic surgery, but is limited in methodologies. Clinicians may advance AI in surgery, specifically by offering standardized visual databases and reporting.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleArtificial intelligenceComputer visionDeep learningLaparoscopyNeural networks

Identifiers

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.