ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Team interactions in robotic-assisted surgery: a scoping review.
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.
- The robotic PIANO: a critical narrative review of surgeon-controlled operative polyphony, human factors, and robotic training.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Intraoperative recall of surgeon-defined 3-dimensional planning during robotic pulmonary resection: A feasibility study.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) significantly alters the operating theater team's spatial configuration, necessitating different communication strategies that subsequently affect team dynamics. Despite the growing prevalence of RAS, inconsistencies remain regarding the conceptualization and measurement of team interactions specifically in RAS in the existing literature. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the empirical research on team interactions within RAS, identify research gaps, and propose future directions. We conducted the scoping review following updated methodological guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting standards. Searches of PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were performed, including empirical articles published between January 2010 and October 2023 focusing on team interactions in RAS. Fifty-four empirical articles were included for analysis. Findings highlighted four major themes: teamwork and communication, non-technical skills, flow disruptions, and teaching/surgical education. Most included studies used quantitative methods and observational data. Communication was frequently studied but inconsistently defined and measured, whereas non-technical skills were more consistently defined and measured. Flow disruptions significantly impacted surgical outcomes, and studies emphasized the need for education on verbal communication strategies in RAS. This review illustrates the inconsistencies in defining and measuring team-related concepts in the literature, highlighting the need for standardized terminologies and measures. Future research should explore mediators and moderators in team interactions in RAS and integrate non-technical skills into training curricula. Such advancements could enhance surgical training, team effectiveness, patient safety, and outcomes associated with RAS.
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.