ArticleBMJ open2026
Health technology assessment of robotic surgery for rectal cancer in China: protocol for a nationally multicentre prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasingly adopted for rectal cancer because of its technical advantages in the confined pelvic space, but its clinical and economic value relative to laparoscopic and open surgery remains uncertain. Existing health technology assessments have relied largely on small single-centre studies or modelling approaches, with limited evidence from low- and middle-income countries such as China, which has the world's largest population of patients with rectal cancer and rapid diffusion of RAS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a prospective, multicentre, three-arm cohort study comparing RAS, laparoscopic and open low anterior resection for mid- and low-rectal adenocarcinoma. A total of 1200 patients (RAS 540, laparoscopy 540, open 120) will be recruited from 17 tertiary hospitals across geographically and socioeconomically diverse regions of China and followed for 36 months. Outcomes include surgical complications, oncologic efficacy (disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), preoperative anxiety (PAS-7), surgeon comfort, number of personnel required for the surgery and comprehensive costs from a societal perspective (direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D-5L. Analyses will use propensity score methods to control for confounding, supplemented by sensitivity and scenario analyses including a 36-month decision-analytic model. Subgroup analyses will explore heterogeneity by clinical, socioeconomic and institutional factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by Peking University Health Science Center's Institutional Review Board (IRB00001052-24054). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be reported according to best-practice guidelines for HTA and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, international conferences and policy briefs. This study is designed to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of RAS compared with laparoscopic surgery, with additional descriptive analysis of open surgery in real-world practice.
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.