Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40720888›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Enhancing Surgical Safety and Efficiency: Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis of Surgical Data Recorders.

Niels Siegel, André Rotärmel, Georgios Polychronidis, Gabriel Salg, Rosa Klotz, Pascal Probst, Thomas Pausch

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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

7 authors.

Niels SiegelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany, 49 6221-56-6110.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-9702-5982
André RotärmelUniversity Center for Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, Carl Gustav Carus Hospital, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8172-8274
Georgios PolychronidisDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany, 49 6221-56-6110.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9819-8179
Gabriel SalgDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany, 49 6221-56-6110.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3964-3527
Rosa KlotzDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany, 49 6221-56-6110.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4123-261X
Pascal ProbstDepartment of Surgery, Kantonsspital Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0895-4015
Thomas PauschDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany, 49 6221-56-6110.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6145-3263

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recently, surgical data recorders that are comparable to flight data recorders, also known as black boxes in the aviation industry, have been developed to improve patient safety and performance in surgery. These devices allow for unique insights in the operating room by providing new data capture capabilities. No systematic review has been carried out to evaluate the areas of application of surgical data recorders to date. Objective: This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aims to assess the aspects of the operating theater environment for which surgical data recorders are used and to make a preliminary assessment of the quantifiable data that can be collected, compared to traditional collection methods. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were lastly systematically searched for papers that focused on a clinical use case for surgical data recorders on February 10, 2025. In particular, not relevant papers focusing on implementation of surgical data recorders were excluded. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were completed to identify relevant articles. The included studies were analyzed descriptively using data extraction forms. Where possible, quantifiable data was also analyzed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Exposure (ROBINS-E) tool. Results: In total, 70 studies were screened, and a total of 17 studies were included. A total of 10 of the 17 studies had a low overall risk of bias; however, confounding, selection bias, small sample sizes, short study periods, and potential Hawthorne effects were the notable limitations. Only 2 studies were assessed to have publication bias. Use cases could be grouped into 4 categories: economic, safety, behavior in the operating room, and technical skill assessment. A single-arm meta-analysis focusing on adverse events and distractions in the operating theater could be conducted, demonstrating accurate reporting of distractions in line with the existing literature. Conclusions: Surgical data recorders provide an unobstructed view of various aspects of the operating theatre. Most published papers present preliminary studies on surgical data recorders, indicating the potential for further, larger-scale studies with enhanced methodological quality.

Indexed as

Patient SafetySurgical Procedures, OperativeHumansOperating Roomshealthcare technologyintraoperative monitoringmedical error reductionmeta-analysisoperating roomoutcome assessmentpatient safetysafety behaviorsurgical data recorderssurgical performance

Identifiers

PMID40720888
PMCPMC12303543

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.