ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Need for formalized robotic training and curriculum in obstetrics and gynecology residency: an examination of current resident outlooks and perspectives.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overview of dual console robotic training for surgical residents: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Surgery in Australasian Gynaecology: Results of a 2025 Cross-Sectional Survey.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Resident robotic training at a single academic institution: a comparison of general surgery, gynecology, and urology.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Beyond the console: surgeon's perceptions & attitudes towards robotic surgery in Saudi Arabia: a nationwide cross- sectional survey.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Pre-Procedural Robotic Surgery Curricula: A Systematic Review and Thematic Meta-Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate current robotic surgery training methodologies for ACGME-accredited obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residency programs, better understand current resident perspectives, and explore potential areas for improvement within resident education. A cross-sectional study was done of ACGME-accredited OB/GYN residents in the 2023-2024 academic year. The study was done on a national setting via web-based survey. 75 surveys were included. The study was conducted via a 33-question survey study using a mixture of multiple choice, multiple answer, and Likert scale questions. Participants noted that 98.7% of their institutions perform robotic surgery and 90.7% have access to robotic console trainers. Outside of the operating room, slightly more than half of participants (57.3%) have formalized robotics training curriculums. A variety of training modalities were noted to be utilized by residents with the most helpful being hands-on training (67.7%) followed by dual-assist console (45.6%). The least helpful was noted to be online modules (58.7%). Most residents either strongly agree (45.3%) or agree (36.0%) that standardized robotics curriculums should be implemented for all OB/GYN residency programs. The largest barriers to completion of this training were noted to be attending comfort with resident participation in the case (74.0%), personal time (58.9%), and availability or access to trainers (42.5%). A formalized and standardized robotic training curriculum should be considered for OB/GYN residents with a multi-modal model utilizing a combination of training modalities as well as dedicated didactic hours.
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.