ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
An evidence-based whole-process perioperative temperature management protocol for elderly patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: development and preliminary clinical evaluation.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Elderly patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are vulnerable to perioperative hypothermia. We developed and preliminarily evaluated a whole-process temperature-management protocol. Protocol development comprised evidence synthesis, interviews with 14 healthcare professionals, and two Delphi rounds with 21 experts. The non-concurrent evaluation included 40 control-period patients enrolled in September-October 2025 and 40 intervention-period patients enrolled in November-December 2025. The primary outcome was core-temperature trajectory across 10 measurements; secondary outcomes were hypothermia, shivering, thermal comfort, and satisfaction. The protocol comprised 8 domains, 20 s-level indicators, and 56 third-level indicators. The core-temperature group-by-time interaction was significant [F(2.92, 227.50) = 10.02; P < 0.001]. In a sensitivity analysis restricted to intraoperative nasopharyngeal measurements T1-T5, the interaction remained significant (likelihood-ratio χ²=12.14; df = 4; P = 0.016), with adjusted differences of 0.20-0.36 °C (all Holm-adjusted P ≤ 0.006). Hypothermia occurred in 7.5% versus 27.5% (risk difference, - 20.0% points; 95% CI, - 36.1 to - 3.2), and shivering in 5.0% versus 22.5% (risk difference, - 17.5% points; 95% CI, - 32.9 to - 2.1), during the intervention and control periods, respectively. The protocol was feasible to implement, and outcomes were more favorable during the intervention period. The non-concurrent design limits causal attribution; concurrent randomized studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42581188What 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.