ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comment on: "A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short-term efficacy of the KangDuo surgical robot with the da Vinci robotic system in radical prostatectomy" by Dai et al.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We read with great interest the recent meta-analysis by Dai et al. comparing the KangDuo (KD) and da Vinci (DV) robotic systems in radical prostatectomy (RP). Their findings highlight the comparable perioperative outcomes of both systems despite longer operative times with KD. While the study provides valuable insights, we suggest incorporating console time as a key parameter reflecting surgical efficiency and proficiency. Additionally, a pooled analysis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) would enhance the oncological assessment of the two platforms. Lastly, the small sample size limits statistical power, underscoring the need for larger, multi-center studies. Addressing these aspects could further strengthen the study's clinical relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39985675What 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.