Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41931172›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

Probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis comparing single-port and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy: A secondary analysis of systematic review data.

Shugo Yajima, Soichiro Yoshida, Wei Chen, Hiroshi Fukushima, Shohei Fukuda, Hajime Tanaka, Hiroyuki Sato, Akihiro Hirakawa, Hitoshi Masuda, Yasuhisa Fujii

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shugo YajimaDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Soichiro YoshidaDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. s-yoshida.uro@tmd.ac.jp.
Wei ChenDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi FukushimaDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shohei FukudaDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hajime TanakaDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki SatoDepartment of Clinical Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Akihiro HirakawaDepartment of Clinical Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hitoshi MasudaDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Yasuhisa FujiiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare single-port (SP) and multiport (MP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and partial nephrectomy (RAPN) using probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) integrating perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes. A secondary analysis used meta-analytic data from Ficarra et al. (2025) comparing SP and MP across 26 RARP and 9 RAPN studies. Eleven criteria were evaluated for RARP and nine for RAPN. Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals informed normal distributions for Monte Carlo simulation (50,000 iterations). Outcomes were mapped to a 0–1 scale using clinically interpretable anchors (± 1.5 for standardized mean difference; ± log[3] for log odds ratio). Five prespecified weighting scenarios (equal, safety, oncology, recovery, balanced) produced preference probabilities and net advantages with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Anchor perturbation assessed robustness. For RARP, SP showed higher preference probabilities across all scenarios (P[SP-RARP > MP-RARP] = 92.9% to > 99.9%), with the largest net advantage under recovery weights (0.128; 95% CrI: 0.081–0.172), driven by length of stay, catheterization time, and estimated blood loss. For RAPN, SP was preferred under recovery weights (P[SP-RAPN > MP-RAPN] = 97.5%; net advantage: 0.046; 95% CrI: 0.000–0.092) but attenuated under safety (62.1%) and oncology (63.7%) weights, where warm ischemia time and major complications penalized SP. Findings were stable across anchor perturbations. A structural sensitivity analysis excluding warm ischemia time (WIT) from the RAPN safety- and recovery-focused scenarios increased the SP preference probability in both RAPN scenarios; however, the safety-focused scenario retained substantial uncertainty (95% CrI crossing zero). SP-RARP demonstrates consistent probabilistic advantage regardless of priority weighting. For RAPN, SP advantage is scenario-dependent, with recovery benefit but considerable uncertainty under safety and oncology priorities. This framework provides transparent decision support, although conclusions remain contingent on the quality of underlying observational evidence.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesNephrectomyProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleMonte Carlo MethodProbabilitySecondary Data AnalysisTreatment OutcomeDecision analysisMonte carlo simulationMulti-criteria decision analysisRobot-assisted partial nephrectomyRobot-assisted radical prostatectomySingle-port surgery

Identifiers

PMID41931172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.