SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Systematic review and meta-analysis of ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage.
Synthesis 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of The Robotic Stereotactic Assistance for intracerebral hemorrhage; A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Robot assisted stereotactic surgery improves hematoma evacuation in intracerebral hemorrhage compared to frame based method.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and short-term results of the Robot of Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) compared to traditional approaches in individuals with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We will perform a comprehensive computerized search of PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant literature on ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage, covering publications from the inception of each database until July 2024. This study will include both English and Chinese language studies. Literature screening will adhere strictly to inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool is utilized for evaluating bias risk in non-RCTs. Analysis of the data from the studies included will be conducted with Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis included 7 retrospective cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled study, involving a total of 844 patients. Among these, 433 patients underwent ROSA, while 411 received conventional treatment (conservative treatment, conventional craniotomy, or stereotactic frame-assisted surgery). Compared to conventional therapy, patients treated with ROSA showed improvements in operative time, postoperative rebleeding, postoperative extubation time, and intracranial infection. Nonetheless, there was no notable contrast in mortality or central hyperthermia outcomes between the two treatments. ROSA is a safe and viable option for treating patients with cerebral hemorrhage, showing significant advantages in terms of surgery duration, postoperative rebleeding, time to remove the breathing tube, and intracranial infection compared to conservative treatment, traditional craniotomy, or stereotactic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39167315What 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.