ArticleScientific reports2025
A multi-perspective qualitative study on robotic-assisted surgery training demand.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing popularity of robotic surgery requires surgeons to have higher proficiency in robotic surgery. Currently, there is a conspicuous absence of a unified and standardized curriculum for robotic surgery in China. Considering the pressing necessity to formulate standardized robotic surgery training programs, our objective is to conduct multi-institutional demand assessments. This will enable us to comprehensively discern the requirements of Chinese surgeons regarding training courses for robotic surgery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in our study. A panel of 41 surgeons from the fields of General Surgery, Gynecology and Urology were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the grounded theory, the interview data was collected, analyzed and sorted into several aspects. The participants were divided into two groups - teachers and students - based on their prior experience and involvement in robotic surgery. Through a meticulous process of coding and analyzing the interview data, six aspects were identified. These aspects encompassed training necessity, training contents, training methods, potential training evaluation instruments, training duration requirements and training resources. Regarding training necessity, training contents and so on, different groups have basically reached a consensus. Nevertheless, significant discrepancies emerge when identifying the distribution of training durations and the target trainees. This study identified multiple themes across six dimensions related to the curriculum needs of surgeons in robotic surgery. In terms of training content, training methods, etc., the basic viewpoints of teachers and students were the same. However, there were significant differences between the two sides in terms of training duration and training targets. When developing robotic surgery curriculum, these findings are certain to improve the effectiveness and reliability of the courses. They will also optimize the robotic surgical skills of surgeons, thereby reducing complications, infections, etc., and providing good assistance for curing patients.
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.