Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40411600›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2025

Development of an evaluation framework for robotic total mesorectal excision videos: a review and comparison of medical professional and public video resources.

Zohaib Arain, Michael G Fadel, Aksaan Arif, Henry Douglas Robb, Bibek Das, Liam Poynter, Christos Kontovounisios, Hutan Ashrafian, Daniel Lawes, Matyas Fehervari

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Zohaib Arain *Department of General Surgery, Frimley NHS Foundation Trust, Camberley, UK.
Michael G Fadel *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK. m.fadel@imperial.ac.uk.
Aksaan ArifSchool of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Henry Douglas RobbDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Bibek DasDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Liam PoynterDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Kent, UK.
Christos Kontovounisios2nd Surgical Department, Evaggelismos Athens General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Hutan AshrafianDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Daniel LawesDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Kent, UK.
Matyas FehervariDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to assess the quality of educational surgical videos for robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), across widely used open-source platforms, using a newly designed quality assessment checklist.

methodsThe checklist was developed by using existing society guidelines, such as the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery, comprising four key sections: (i) usability of the platform, (ii) video component, (iii) intraoperative techniques and (iv) other information (including case presentation and outcomes). Videos were identified using the search terms 'Robotic TME' from surgical education platforms (WebSurg, C-SATS and Touch Surgery) and YouTube, between January 2016 and July 2024. All videos displaying robotic TME were reviewed and scored using the quality assessment tool (/12), and the videos across the platforms were subsequently compared.

resultsA total of 113 videos were scored using the checklist: 63 surgical education platform (10 WebSurg and 53 C-SATS) and 50 YouTube videos. The total median checklist score achieved by WebSurg (9 [IQR 8-9] and YouTube videos (8 [IQR 7-10]) was significantly higher than CSAT-S videos (4 [IQR 4-5]; p < 0.001). The usability of platform scores for YouTube was significantly higher than WebSurg and C-SATS videos (p < 0.001). Scores for video components, intraoperative techniques and other information were higher across WebSurg and YouTube videos when compared to C-SATS (p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference between WebSurg and YouTube for each domain.

conclusionThe overall educational quality of online robotic TME videos was found to be generally heterogeneous, with WebSurg and YouTube videos demonstrating higher scores based on the checklist. A new quality assessment tool has been proposed for robotic TME videos, which has the potential to improve the reliability and value of published video research.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelRectumRobotic Surgical ProceduresVideo RecordingChecklistHumansEducational videoRobotic total mesorectal excisionSurgical video platformsVideo quality assessment

Identifiers

PMID40411600
PMCPMC12103343

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.