Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35576567›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

Use of Robots in Critical Care: Systematic Review.

Rachel Teng, Yichen Ding, Kay Choong See

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Care Beyond Cure: Humanizing the Intensive Care Unit Journey.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

3 authors.

Rachel Teng *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3237-6451
Yichen Ding *Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7152-1132
Kay Choong SeeDivision of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-2528-7282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent focus on the critical setting, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic, has highlighted the need for minimizing contact-based care and increasing robotic use. Robotics is a rising field in the context of health care, and we sought to evaluate the use of robots in critical care settings.

objectiveAlthough robotic presence is prevalent in the surgical setting, its role in critical care has not been well established. We aimed to examine the uses and limitations of robots for patients who are critically ill.

methodsThis systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Library were searched from their inception to December 23, 2021. Included studies involved patients requiring critical care, both in intensive care units or high-dependency units, or settings that required critical care procedures (eg, intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Randomized trials and observational studies were included.

resultsA total of 33 studies were included. The greatest application of robots in the intensive care unit was in the field of telepresence, whereby robots proved advantageous in providing a reduced response time, earlier intervention, and lower mortality rates. Challenges of telepresence included regulatory and financial barriers. In therapy and stroke rehabilitation, robots achieved superior clinical outcomes safely. Robotic use in patient evaluation and assessment was mainly through ultrasound evaluation, obtaining satisfactory to superior results with the added benefits of remote assessment, time savings, and increased efficiency. Robots in drug dispensing and delivery increased efficiency and generated cost savings. All the robots had technological limitations and hidden costs.

conclusionsOverall, our results show that robotic use in critical care settings is a beneficial, effective, and well-received intervention that delivers significant benefits to patients, staff, and hospitals. Looking ahead, it is necessary to form strong ethical and legislative frameworks and overcome various regulatory and financial barriers.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021234162; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=234162.

Indexed as

COVID-19RoboticsCritical CareCritical IllnessHumansPandemicsCOVID-19high dependencyintensive careintubationtelepresence

Identifiers

PMID35576567
PMCPMC9152725

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.