SynthesisBJS open2025
Cost analyses in randomized trials on robot-assisted surgery: systematic review.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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.
- [Preliminary clinical experience of domestic robot-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with venous tumor thrombectomy].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted jaw-in-a-day based on the sandwich approach: case series.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted surgery (RAS) is increasingly being used, yet its cost-effectiveness remains debated. Cost analyses of RAS are therefore essential but remain challenging. This systematic review evaluated the quality of cost analyses in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing RAS with alternative surgical approaches.
methodsA systematic review was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception up to August 2025. RCTs were included if they compared RAS with other approaches and conducted a cost analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. The methodological quality and comprehensiveness of cost analyses were evaluated with the Economic Evaluation Bias Assessment Tool (ECOBIAS) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, respectively. Studies were evaluated for key structural and component-specific costs of RAS.
resultsOverall, 38 RCTs involving 5832 patients were included. Most studies focused on general surgical procedures (20 RCTs, 53%), followed by urology (7), gynaecology (7), and cardiothoracic surgery (4). RAS was compared with laparoscopic surgery in 23 RCTs, open surgery in 14 RCTs, and another robotic modality in one RCT. Regarding bias, 10 RCTs (26%) were considered high risk, and 24 (63%) had some concerns. On average, RCTs met 5 of 11 ECOBIAS criteria and 14 of 28 CHEERS items. Only 15 of 38 RCTs (39%) included key structural costs of RAS, such as robot acquisition and maintenance, whereas 12 of 38 RCTs (32%) provided a component-specific cost overview. RAS was more expensive in 33 of 36 RCTs (92%).
conclusionRandomized trials comparing RAS with other surgical approaches rarely perform adequate cost assessments and cost-effectiveness analyses. The substantial risk of bias, methodological heterogeneity, and partial cost reporting observed underline the need for uniform economic evaluation in RCTs on RAS. Registration number: CRD42024520677 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
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.