Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757562›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

Utilising an accelerated Delphi process to develop consensus on the requirement and components of a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum.

Joshua Richard Burke, Christina A Fleming, Martin King, Charlotte El-Sayed, William S Bolton, Chris Munsch, Deena Harji, Simon P Bach, Justin W Collins

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Usefulness of Mixed Reality in Surgical Treatment: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  18. ACPGBI position statement on robotic-assisted colorectal surgical training.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Joshua Richard BurkeThe Association of Surgeons in Training, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, England, UK. joshburke@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4027-747X
Christina A FlemingThe Association of Surgeons in Training, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-2655
Martin KingThe Association of Surgeons in Training, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, England, UK.
Charlotte El-SayedTechnology Enhanced Learning Directorate of Innovation, Digital and Transformation, Health Education England, London, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5994-5645
William S BoltonLeeds Institute Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Chris MunschTechnology Enhanced Learning Directorate of Innovation, Digital and Transformation, Health Education England, London, England.
Deena HarjiRobotics and Digital Surgery Initiative, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8493-3312
Simon P BachRobotics and Digital Surgery Initiative, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-7241
Justin W CollinsUniversity College London, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2228-1213

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to grow globally. Despite this, in the UK and Ireland, it is estimated that over 70% of surgical trainees across all specialities have no access to robot-assisted surgical training (RAST). This study aimed to provide educational stakeholders guidance on a pre-procedural core robotic surgery curriculum (PPCRC) from the perspective of the end user; the surgical trainee. The study was conducted in four Phases: P1: a steering group was formed to review current literature and summarise the evidence, P2: Pan-Specialty Trainee Panel Virtual Classroom Discussion, P3: Accelerated Delphi Process and P4: Formulation of Recommendations. Forty-three surgeons in training representing all surgical specialties and training levels contributed to the three round Delphi process. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥ 80% agreement. There was 100% response from all three rounds. The resulting formulated guidance showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of > 0.8. There was 97.7% agreement that a standardised PPCRC would be advantageous to training and that, independent of speciality, there should be a common approach (95.5% agreement). Consensus was reached in multiple areas: 1. Experience and Exposure, 2. Access and context, 3. Curriculum Components, 4 Target Groups and Delivery, 5. Objective Metrics, Benchmarking and Assessment. Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved multispecialty consensus among trainees to develop and reach content validation for the requirements and components of a PPCRC. This guidance will benefit from further validation following implementation.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresSpecialties, SurgicalClinical CompetenceCurriculumDelphi TechniqueHumansCurriculumDelphi methodRobot-assisted surgeryRobotic surgeryTraining

Identifiers

PMID36757562
PMCPMC9909133

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.