ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy (RANU) and laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LNU) using a probability-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework integrating perioperative, pathological, and mortality outcomes while explicitly modeling uncertainty. Comparative effect estimates were drawn from a published meta-analysis (O’Sullivan et al., 2023) of 29,987 patients (RANU 9,175; LNU 20,812). Six criteria were evaluated: overall morbidity, operative time, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, and mortality. Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) informed normal distributions (log-odds scale for odds ratios). Outcomes were mapped to a 0–1 value scale using symmetric, clinically interpretable anchors. Uncertainty was assessed via Monte Carlo simulation (50,000 iterations). Five prespecified weighting scenarios (equal, safety-focused, oncology-focused, efficiency-focused, balanced) produced overall scores, rank probabilities, and pairwise net advantages. Sensitivity analysis evaluated anchor robustness. Under equal weighting, mean scores were 0.523 for RANU and 0.500 for LNU, with RANU preferred in 79.0% of simulations (net advantage, 0.023; 95% CI, − 0.032 to 0.079). RANU demonstrated higher preference probabilities in safety-focused (96.2%), oncology-focused (97.6%), and balanced (93.1%) scenarios, driven by lower morbidity and mortality. LNU was favored only when operative time and length of stay received dominant weight (RANU preference, 14.6%). Findings remained stable across anchor perturbations. When uncertainty and stakeholder preferences are incorporated, RANU demonstrates a higher probability of overall clinical benefit in safety- and oncology-focused settings; however, net advantage estimates showed uncertainty intervals overlapping zero in several scenarios, and these findings should not be interpreted as definitive clinical dominance. This probabilistic MCDA framework provides transparent, preference-aligned surgical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41511665What 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.