ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic simulation in urology training: implementation, curricula, and barriers across U.S. residency programs.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Institutional availability, training resources, and supervised participation in robot-assisted surgery among Polish urology residents: a nationwide survey.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- 3D holographic reconstruction and intraoperative navigation combined with CBL teaching in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy training for urology residents.Updates in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery has transformed urology. Simulation-based robotic training allows residents to develop skills in a controlled, risk-free environment and enhances proficiency. Our objective was to assess the integration of robotic simulation training in U.S. urology residency programs, focusing on adoption, curriculum types, mandatory status, and barriers to implementation. We distributed a Qualtrics survey to U.S. urology residency program directors to assess the presence and structure of robotic simulation curricula. If a program director did not respond, an email was sent to the program coordinator to survey them on the presence and structure of a curriculum. We surveyed only program directors' views of simulation training and assessed their responses using a 5-point Likert scale. Surveys were sent to 150 programs, with 33 (22%) responding; 17 program directors (51.5%) and 16 coordinators (48.5%). Of the responding programs, 31/33 (93.9%) reported access to and utilization of robotic simulation training. Simulation training was mandatory for residents in 21/31 (67.7%) of these programs. Structured curricula with objectives were reported by 16/31 programs (51.6%), while 15/31 (48.4%) relied on informal or self-directed methods. Supervised simulation training was reported by 24/31 programs (77.4%). Program directors viewed simulation training as beneficial, with an average agreement rating of 4.18/5 for its educational role and impact on performance. Our survey shows that most urology training programs have adopted robotic simulation; however, not all programs have made it mandatory for residents or implemented a structured learning curriculum. Addressing these issues could promote more uniform training practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40684419What 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.