ArticleiScience2026
Comparative effectiveness of robotic and video assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer across key outcomes.
Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Does a Robotic Lung Resection Programme Evolve? Learning Curve and Conversion Analysis of the Versius CMR Surgical System.Cancers · 2026Article
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A Comparison Between Robotic Surgery and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- The unified front: a multidisciplinary approach in the Era of uniportal thoracic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) are widely used for minimally invasive resection of pulmonary tumors, but they differ in technical capabilities and resource demands. We conducted a PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and cohort studies identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through June 2025. Across 25 studies including 41,417 patients, RATS was associated with lower conversion to thoracotomy rates and less blood loss, more extensive lymphadenectomy, higher R0 resection rates, and shorter chest tube duration, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Pneumonia and atrial fibrillation were less frequent, whereas overall complications, pneumothorax, and 30- and 90-day mortality were similar. Hospitalization costs were higher, and pooled survival data suggested a possible long-term advantage. These findings clarify platform tradeoffs and motivate large randomized trials and cost-effectiveness analyses.
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.