Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38820412›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

European Robotic Surgery Consensus (ERSC): Protocol for the development of a consensus in robotic training for gastrointestinal surgery trainees.

Michael G Fadel, Josephine Walshaw, Francesca Pecchini, Muhammed Elhadi, Marina Yiasemidou, Matthew Boal, Francesco Maria Carrano, Lisa H Massey, Stavros A Antoniou, Felix Nickel and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

16 authors.

Michael G FadelDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-4270
Josephine WalshawLeeds Institute of Medical Research, St James's University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0450-273X
Francesca PecchiniDivision of General Surgery, Emergency and New Technologies, Baggiovara General Hospital, Modena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6933-5368
Muhammed ElhadiTripoli University Hospital, Tripoli, Libya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6406-4212
Marina YiasemidouThe Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew BoalThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Francesco Maria CarranoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, St Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1189-9907
Lisa H MasseyDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Stavros A AntoniouDepartment of Surgery, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4630-6748
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Silvana PerrettaIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Hans F FuchsDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
George B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nader K FrancisThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Christos KontovounisiosDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
European Robotic Surgery Consensus (ERSC) study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking ≥ 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The study protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/br87d/).

Indexed as

CurriculumDigestive System Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueEuropeHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID38820412
PMCPMC11142498

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.