SynthesisBMJ open2022
Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials featuring geographic subgroup analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (bTME) for locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery in South Korea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and the factors affecting its cost-effectiveness: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Responsible adoption of robot-assisted surgery within health systems in middle-income countries: a narrative review and practical governance framework.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Evidence-based perioperative nutritional management for patients undergoing prostate cancer surgery: a systematic review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- [First cohort: Robotic radical prostatectomy at the Mexican Institute for Social Security].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- Finger dissection open radical prostatectomy offers comparable early functional results with robotic prostatectomy in the robotic era: a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted approach versus open surgery and conventional laparoscopy for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a micro-costing study.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluation of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2025Review
- Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Robotic kidney transplantation.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Diagnosis to dissection: AI's role in early detection and surgical intervention for gastric cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Assessment of routine same-day discharge surgery for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- The Availability, Cost, Limitations, Learning Curve and Future of Robotic Systems in Urology and Prostate Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
designSystematic review.
settingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.
participantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.
interventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.
resultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.
conclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021246811.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.