Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40522553›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Robotic vs laparoscopic approaches of pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ghader Jamjoum, Samar M Altoukhi, Muntaha Sami Alsulaimani, Fouad Abdulsalam S Alghamidi, Muath A Alqahtani, Lina Saleh Aljedani, Ziyad Khalid Alahmari, Ashraf Maghrabi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

8 authors.

Ghader JamjoumDepartment of Surgery, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Samar M AltoukhiCollege of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. samaraltoukhi72@gmail.com.
Muntaha Sami AlsulaimaniCollege of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Fouad Abdulsalam S AlghamidiCollege of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Muath A AlqahtaniCollege of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Lina Saleh AljedaniCollege of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ziyad Khalid AlahmariCollege of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Ashraf MaghrabiDepartment of Surgery, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic resection is necessary to treat pancreatic diseases, especially malignancy. Minimally invasive procedures, including robotic (RPR) and laparoscopic (LPR) pancreatic resections, have grown in popularity due to their potential to improve recovery and lower morbidity. The aim of this study is to provide evidence-based data for clinical decision-making by systematically comparing RPR and LPR with respect to postoperative recovery, perioperative safety, and oncological outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers extracted data, and pooled prevalence was analyzed using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with Higgins I

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPancreatectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedOperative TimePancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopicPancreatic resectionRoboticSurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40522553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.