Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34626319›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Addressing misconceptions of flow disruption studies in "Is non-stop always better? Examining assumptions behind the concept of flow disruptions in studies of robot-assisted surgery".

Ken Catchpole, Connor Lusk, Matthias Weigl, Jennifer Anger, Tara Cohen

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Ken CatchpoleDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 167 Ashley Ave., Suite 301, MSC 912, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-3025
Connor LuskDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 167 Ashley Ave., Suite 301, MSC 912, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. luskco@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-7928
Matthias WeiglInstitute for Patient Safety, Bonn University Hospital, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2408-1725
Jennifer AngerDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3897-5941
Tara CohenDepartment of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2137-6093

Funding

Human Factors and Systems Integration in High Technology Surgery (HF-SIgHTS)R01HS026491 · AHRQ · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI ANGER, JENNIFER TASH, CATCHPOLE, KEN · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS026491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This letter to the editor provides a response to "Is non-stop always better? Examining assumptions behind the concept of flow disruptions in studies of robot-assisted surgery." The authors provide much needed clarification on misconceptions of flow disruption studies. The evolving methodology is not aimed at creating a "non-stop" flow, or optimizing efficiency, but understanding the clinical process from a systems perspective.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresEfficiencyHumansFlow disruptionsRobot-assisted surgerySystems safety

Identifiers

PMID34626319
PMCPMC9724399

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.