Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36188716›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2022

Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review.

Conchubhair Winters, Venkataraman Subramanian, Pietro Valdastri

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Conchubhair WintersLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, United Kingdom. c.r.winters@leeds.ac.uk.
Venkataraman SubramanianLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, United Kingdom.
Pietro ValdastriSchool of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic colonoscopes could potentially provide a comfortable, less painful and safer alternative to standard colonoscopy. Recent exciting developments in this field are pushing the boundaries to what is possible in the future. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current work in robotic colonoscopes including self-propelled, steerable and disposable endoscopes that could be alternatives to standard colonoscopy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these systems currently in development and highlight the technical readiness of each system to help the reader understand where and when such systems may be available for routine clinical use and get an idea of where and in which situation they can best be deployed.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresColonoscopesColonoscopyEquipment DesignHumansCapsule endoscopyColonic polypColonoscopyColorectal cancerEndoscopyRobot-enhanced procedures

Identifiers

PMID36188716
PMCPMC9516669
OpenAlexW4296105959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.