ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Scientific evolution of robotic surgery in urogenital diseases: bibliometric analysis.
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. 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.
- Suggestions and insights from 28 bibliometric studies in the Journal of Robotic Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robot-assisted surgery for male reproductive diseases: global research trends, collaboration networks, and thematic evolution.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Global research trends in sexual function outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a bibliometric and visualization study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The preparedness of urologists to manage cardiopulmonary arrest during robot-assisted surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Reflections on the scientific evolution of robotic surgery in urogenital diseases: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery has revolutionized modern medicine, particularly in urology, by enhancing surgical precision through advanced visualization, motion scaling, and tremor filtration. As a result, robotic-assisted surgery has become the standard of care for complex procedures, such as radical prostatectomy, with demonstrated benefits in reducing complications and improving clinical outcomes. Despite the rapid evolution of this field, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis has systematically evaluated its scientific trajectory, research trends, and international collaboration. A cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted using Scopus as the primary data source. A semi-structured search strategy incorporating MeSH terms and synonyms was applied to identify publications related to robotic surgery in urogenital diseases. Data were exported, standardized, and analyzed using Bibliometrix (R 4.3.1) for bibliometric and network analyses. A total of 3506 publications (1993-2024) were included, with 79.2% original articles and 11.6% reviews. The United States (n = 1388) led the scientific production, followed by Italy (n = 389) and Japan (n = 285). The research predominantly focused on prostate tumors, clinical outcomes, and surgical complications, while recent trends highlighted growing interest in robot-assisted total cystectomy. The exponential growth of robotic surgery research aligns with its increasing clinical adoption. However, regional disparities persist, emphasizing the need to expand scientific contributions from high-volume surgical centers. Promoting global research collaboration will further consolidate robotic surgery as a fundamental tool in urological practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40377820What 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.