Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34732486›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

ROBOCOP II (ROBOtic assisted versus conventional open partial nephrectomy) randomised, controlled feasibility trial: clinical trial protocol.

Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Marie Angela Sidoti Abate, Manuel Neuberger, Marietta Kirchner, Regina Krisam, Luisa Egen, Caelan Max Haney, Fabian Siegel, Maurice-Stephan Michel, Patrick Honeck and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04534998 (ROBOtic-assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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.

NCT04534998 phase2unknown statusnot on this map

ROBOtic-assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy: a Single-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsmedizin MannheimRan2020 to 2022Enrolled50ConditionsRenal Cell CarcinomaArmsPartial nephrectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany karl-friedrich.kowalewski@umm.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2931-6247
Marie Angela Sidoti AbateDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Manuel NeubergerDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Marietta KirchnerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0294-2483
Regina KrisamInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Luisa EgenDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Caelan Max HaneyDepartment of Urology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Fabian SiegelDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Maurice-Stephan MichelDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Patrick HoneckDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Philipp NuhnDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Niklas WesthoffDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Maximilian Christian KriegmairDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
University Medical Centre Mannheim · DEHeidelberg University · DELeipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRandomised controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open PN (OPN) are lacking. Therefore, we aim to report the study protocol and a trial update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing RAPN versus OPN for renal neoplasms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ROBOtic assisted versus conventional Open Partial nephrectomy II trial is designed as a single-centre, randomised, open-label, feasibility trial. Participation will be offered to patients with renal neoplasms and deemed feasible for both, OPN and RAPN. We aim to enrol 50 patients within 15 months using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint of the trial is feasibility of recruitment and will be successful if one third of eligible patients agree to participate. Secondary endpoints include perioperative results, health-related quality of life, inflammatory response as well as surgical ergonomics of the operating team. If the primary outcome, feasibility of recruitment, is successful, the secondary results of the trial will be used for planning a confirmative phase III trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the local institutional review board (Ethik-Kommission II at Heidelberg University: 2020-542N). Results will be made publicly available in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at appropriate congresses and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04534998.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFeasibility StudiesHumansNephrectomyQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomekidney tumourssurgeryurological tumours

Identifiers

PMID34732486
PMCPMC8572388
OpenAlexW3208036904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.