Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38386115›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

Robotic surgery: public perceptions and current misconceptions.

Gurneet Brar, Siyang Xu, Mehreen Anwar, Kareena Talajia, Nikilesh Ramesh, Serish R Arshad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

6 authors.

Gurneet BrarImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England. gurneet.brar1@nhs.net.
Siyang XuImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England.
Mehreen AnwarImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England.
Kareena TalajiaImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England.
Nikilesh RameshImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England.
Serish R ArshadImperial College London School of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming, Imperial College Road, SW7 2AZ, London, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whilst surgeons and robotic companies are key stakeholders involved in the adoption of robotic assisted surgery (RS), the public's role is overlooked. However, given that patients hold ultimate power over their healthcare decisions, public acceptance of RS is crucial. Therefore, this study aims to identify public understanding, opinions, and misconceptions about RS. An online questionnaire distributed between February and May 2021 ascertained the views of UK adults on RS. The themes of questions included familiarity, experience and comfort with RS, opinions on its ethical implications, and the impact of factual information provided to the participant. The data were evaluated using thematic and statistical analysis, including assessing for statistical differences in age, gender, education level, and presence in the medical field. Overall, 216 responses were analysed. Participants were relatively uninformed about RS, with a median knowledge score of 4.00(2.00-6.00) on a 10-point Likert scale. Fears surrounding increased risk, reduced precision and technological failure were identified, alongside misconceptions about its autonomous nature. However, providing factual information in the survey about RS statistically increased participant comfort (p = < 0.0001). Most (61.8%) participants believed robot manufacturers were responsible for malfunctions, but doctors were held accountable more by older, less educated, and non-medical participants. Our findings suggest that there is limited public understanding of RS. The numerous common misconceptions identified present a major barrier to the widespread acceptance of RS, since inaccurate fears about its nature could discourage potential patients from engaging with robotic procedures.

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsAdultHumansKnowledgePublic OpinionMedical technologyRobot-assisted surgeryRobotic surgerySurgery

Identifiers

PMID38386115
PMCPMC10884196

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.