ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Responsible adoption of robot-assisted surgery within health systems in middle-income countries: a narrative review and practical governance framework.
Review 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.
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.
- Embodied artificial intelligence in robotic orthopaedic surgery: from intelligent assistance to adaptive surgical autonomy.Journal of robotic 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) may expand minimally invasive capacity, but its adoption in middle-income countries is shaped by constraints not captured by platform-level comparisons, including foreign-currency exposure, imported consumables and technical support, limited reimbursement, scarce simulators and proctors, and geographic concentration of specialized care. This narrative review examined literature on surgical innovation, health technology assessment, implementation, economics, training, governance and equity. A targeted PubMed/MEDLINE literature search last updated on 15 July 2026 was supplemented by reference chaining and searches of official institutional and professional sources; the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) informed reporting transparency. The synthesis positions the proposed framework alongside existing consensus guidance, national governance models and disease-specific standardized outcome sets. It translates these sources into three linked components: responsible-adoption domains; a minimum institutional dataset covering clinical, technical, economic, training, access and governance variables; and a decision matrix for pilot adoption, expansion, correction, pause, restriction, reallocation or discontinuation. The framework treats RAS as a complex health-system intervention and links procedure-specific incremental value to the real local comparator, lifecycle costs, team competence, technical reliability, patient-centered consent and equity effects of centralization. It proposes locally prespecified review triggers rather than universal thresholds. This author-developed synthesis is not a validated instrument, consensus guideline, formal health technology assessment or cost-effectiveness model. Its next step is content review, feasibility piloting, structured consensus and multicenter evaluation. Used with local regulation and procedure-specific evidence, it could support transparent, accountable decisions about where RAS may be introduced, expanded, limited or stopped.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536324What 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.