SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Simulation in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Method: A literature search was conducted across three databases using terms: robot* AND simulat* AND thora* OR chest* from January 2010 to December 2025. Themes regarding development of a robotic surgical program were identified. The papers were critically appraised and scored using the MMERSQI tool. Results: Out of 455 articles, 24 full-text articles were reviewed, and ten included in the final review. Three themes emerged: competency assessment, skills development, and MDT education. Studies indicated minimally invasive surgery skills can predict robotic skill acquisition. There is conflicting evidence on whether simulation sets a benchmark for competency or enhances surgical skills. Translation of improvements from simulation to clinical practice remains unclear. Simulation was also highlighted as a method to ensure team members develop together and offer organisations learning opportunities. Conclusion: Recommendations on incorporating simulation into a RATS program include: prioritize surgeons experienced in minimally invasive techniques for early introduction to RATS via simulation; avoid using simulation benchmarking as the sole marker of competence; use virtual simulation-based learning for familiarity with robotic systems but do not accept it as surgical experience for certification; and emphasize MDT simulation for improved teamwork and organizational learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41741915What 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.