Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35746359›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Smarter Health through the Internet of Surgical Things.

Francesk Mulita, Georgios-Ioannis Verras, Christos-Nikolaos Anagnostopoulos, Konstantinos Kotis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

140 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Francesk MulitaIntelligent Systems Lab, Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7198-2628
Georgios-Ioannis VerrasDepartment of Surgery, General University Hospital of Patras, 26504 Rio, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8398-556X
Christos-Nikolaos AnagnostopoulosIntelligent Systems Lab, Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece.
Konstantinos KotisIntelligent Systems Lab, Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7838-9691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: In the last few years, technological developments in the surgical field have been rapid and are continuously evolving. One of the most revolutionizing breakthroughs was the introduction of the IoT concept within surgical practice. Our systematic review aims to summarize the most important studies evaluating the IoT concept within surgical practice, focusing on Telesurgery and surgical Telementoring. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the current literature, focusing on the Internet of Surgical Things in Telesurgery and Telementoring. Forty-eight (48) studies were included in this review. As secondary research questions, we also included brief overviews of the use of IoT in image-guided surgery, and patient Telemonitoring, by systematically analyzing fourteen (14) and nineteen (19) studies, respectively. (3) Results: Data from 219 patients and 757 healthcare professionals were quantitively analyzed. Study designs were primarily observational or based on model development. Palpable advantages from the IoT incorporation mainly include less surgical hours, accessibility to high quality treatment, and safer and more effective surgical education. Despite the described technological advances, and proposed benefits of the systems presented, there are still identifiable gaps in the literature that need to be further explored in a systematic manner. (4) Conclusions: The use of the IoT concept within the surgery domain is a widely incorporated but less investigated concept. Advantages have become palpable over the past decade, yet further research is warranted.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelInternetHumansInternet of Surgical ThingsIoTsmart healthsurgical practice

Identifiers

PMID35746359
PMCPMC9231158

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.