SynthesisBJS open2025
Evaluating safety and quality of robotic-assisted gastric cancer surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted surgery is expanding globally. The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recently cautioned due to a paucity of high-quality evidence. To address this, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression were undertaken to evaluate the quality and safety of robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) versus conventional approaches for gastric cancer.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (2 May 2025) for studies comparing RAG to open or laparoscopic gastrectomy up to 30 April 2025. Primary outcomes were Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II complications (CD ≥ II; safety) and margin-positive resections (quality). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Cochrane Risk of Bias v2.0 tools. Heterogeneity and evidence certainty were evaluated using meta-regression and GRADE assessment.
resultsIn all, 90 studies (65 296 patients) were included; only three studies were randomized clinical trials and 72 were from East Asia. In 44 studies (12 102 patients) RAG was associated with significantly lower CD ≥ II complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.64 to 0.86); heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21.4%). Seven studies had a low risk of bias. From 35 studies on margin status, RAG had fewer R1 resections (OR 0.74; 95% c.i. 0.51 to 1.07); heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 34.0%). Adoption year, industry funding, extent of resection, and tumour stage were identified as sources of heterogeneity. Three studies were at low risk of bias. Certainty was very low for both outcomes.
conclusionAlthough there may be potential benefits of robotic-assisted surgery, cautious adoption is warranted given the current uncertainty. Safe adoption requires standardized training, competency benchmarks, and limiting industry involvement. High-quality evaluation through randomized trials and parallel health economics is urgently needed to inform future policy and practice.
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.