ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2023
Reproducibility challenges in robotic surgery.
Review in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Surgical Robotics: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The ADePT framework for assessing autonomous laboratory robotics.Communications chemistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility of results is, in all research fields, the cornerstone of the scientific method and the minimum standard for assessing the value of scientific claims and conclusions drawn by other scientists. It requires a systematic approach and accurate description of the experimental procedure and data analysis, which allows other scientists to follow the steps described in the published work and obtain the "same results." In general and in different research contexts with "same" results, we mean different things. It can be almost identical measures in a fully deterministic experiment or "validation of a hypothesis" or statistically similar results in a non-deterministic context. Unfortunately, it has been shown by systematic meta-analysis studies that many findings in fields like psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics do not hold up when other researchers try to replicate them. Many scientific fields are experiencing what is generally referred to as a "reproducibility crisis," which undermines the trust in published results, imposes a thorough revision of the methodology in scientific research, and makes progress difficult. In general, the reproducibility of experiments is not a mainstream practice in artificial intelligence and robotics research. Surgical robotics is no exception. There is a need for developing new tools and putting in place a community effort to allow the transition to more reproducible research and hence faster progress in research. Reproducibility, replicability, and benchmarking (operational procedures for the assessment and comparison of research results) are made more complex for medical robotics and surgical systems, due to patenting, safety, and ethical issues. In this review paper, we selected 10 relevant published manuscripts on surgical robotics to analyze their clinical applicability and underline the problems related to reproducibility of the reported experiments, with the aim of finding possible solutions to the challenges that limit the translation of many scientific research studies into real-world applications and slow down research progress.
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.