SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Robot-assisted technique versus freehand technique for spine surgery: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Precision in the era of intelligent orthopedics: robot-assisted surgery enhances short-term recovery and long-term spinal stability for TLICS-4 thoracolumbar fractures.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Global research hotspots and emerging trends in orthopedic robotic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted spinal surgery: technological maturity, clinical evidence, and future directions.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Review
- Global research trends in robot-assisted spinal surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Quantitative analysis of studies that use artificial intelligence on spinal diseases: A bibliometric analysis.Digital healthArticle
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
backgroundPedicle screw internal fixation is a significant method for maintaining spinal stability. Despite the existence of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have evaluated the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted compared to freehand technique, a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence's strength and quality remains to be conducted.
methodsA comprehensive search of five major databases (i.e. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted up to May 2024. The present umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the included meta-analysis was evaluated by AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). The quality of the evidence for each association was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
resultsThe present study incorporated a total of 22 meta-analyses, encompassing randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and observational studies. A total of 14 associations with 'perfect' pedicle screw, 'clinically acceptable' pedicle screw, complications, facet joint violation, intraoperative radiation dose, intraoperative radiation time, and other related outcomes were evaluated in this umbrella review. Robot-assisted techniques in spine surgery have been found to be beneficial. The quality of the majority of the associations ranged from low to very low, indicating that flaws were certain in the current meta-analyses.
conclusionThis umbrella review indicated potential advantages of robotic-assisted technique for spine surgery, despite these findings with low certainty of the evidence, and cautious interpretation and application in clinical practice are needed.
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.