SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
A systematic review of comprehensive Robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) curricula.
Synthesis 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic surgery undergraduate module: first formal curricular integration.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) is being increasingly used for minimal access surgery. There has been a growing interest in developing curricula for RAS training. We performed a systematic review of comprehensive RAS curricula. Methods: A systematic review of RAS curricula evidence and teaching was conducted on the platforms Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO combining robotic surgery with surgical training in February 2024 and updated in June 2025. After removal of duplicates 10,002 references were returned. Screening using the PICO framework for eligibility identified 175 relevant studies, out of which 39 studies reported on 29 comprehensive RAS curricula. Data were extracted and analysed using a predeveloped extraction tool. Analysis focused on common curricular elements and supporting evidence for curricula success according to Kirkpatrick's levels of evidence. Study quality was assessed using the MMERSQI (Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument) criteria. PROSPERO CRD42024566778. All 29 curricula included simulation training. The nature and volume of simulation training and mentorship varied widely across curricula. Objective assessment and non-technical skills training (NTS) were not uniformly included. Surgical societies outlined curricula with proficiency-based progression, modular intraoperative training and objective assessment. All studies found a benefit from curriculum implementation, but the methodological quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: A standardised RAS curriculum is feasible and beneficial and surgical societies have outlined RAS curricula which could be implemented locally. However, not all current comprehensive RAS curricular are grounded in the relevant educational frameworks. Further research supporting the implementation and evolution of RAS curricula is necessary.
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.