ArticleBJUI compass2025
Guidelines for robotic credentialling in reconstructive and functional urology. Consensus study.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. 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.
- Expert consensus on best content of a robotic surgical curriculum: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to define criteria for robotic reconstructive and functional urology credentialing using expert consensus. A recent narrative review identified a lack of standardised minimal requirements for performing robotic-assisted surgery procedures. The substantial variability or absence of a standardised curriculum and credentialing process within a highly specialised surgical field is often insufficient to guarantee surgeon proficiency and could potentially jeopardise patient safety. Subjects and Methods: Thirty-five international robotic surgery experts in urology and urogynaecology, selected based on surgical and research expertise, were invited to participate as expert panellists. Using a modified Delphi process the experts were asked to indicate their agreement with the proposed list of recommendations that was identified from the literature and review of relevant international credentialing policies in three electronic survey rounds. Results: Fourteen experts participated in round 1 of online surveys, 9 in round 2 and 13 in round 3. From 50 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 39 recommendations (32 from round 1, 4 from round 2 and 3 from round 3) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Panellists agreed reconstructive and functional urology required its own specific modular training curriculum as the foundation for robotic training and a surgeon must have appropriate training i.e., fellowship or evidence of speciality training in functional urology. Conclusions: This was the first study to develop preliminary guidelines on credentialing for robotic surgery in reconstructive and functional urology. A Delphi approach was employed to establish comprehensive credentialing criteria for robotic-assisted surgery. The consistent adoption of these criteria across institutions will foster the proficiency of robotic surgeons and has the potential to bring improvements in patient outcomes.
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.