Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37272397›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Best practice considerations on the assessment of robotic assisted surgical systems: results from an international consensus expert panel.

Jamie Erskine, Payam Abrishami, Richard Charter, Americo Cicchetti, Richard Culbertson, Eliney Faria, Jo Carol Hiatt, Jim Khan, Guy Maddern, Anita Patel and 6 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

16 authors.

Jamie ErskineAlira Health, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0596-4135
Payam AbrishamiErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, National Health Care Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard CharterAlira Health, London, UK.
Americo CicchettiDepartment of Economics and Business Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy.
Richard CulbertsonLouisiana State University Health Sciences Centre, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Eliney FariaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Felicio Rocho, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Jo Carol HiattMedical Device Innovation Consortium, Arlington, VA, USA.
Jim KhanPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Guy MaddernDiscipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Anita PatelIpsos, London, UK.
Koon Ho RhaYonsei University Medical School, Seoul, South Korea.
Paresh ShahNYU Langone, New York City, NY, USA.
Prasanna SooriakumaranLerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, London, UK.
Scott TackettIntuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Giuseppe TurchettiManagement Institute, Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Anastasia ChalkidouHTAi - Health Technology Assessment International, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Funding

Intuitive Surgical
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessments (HTAs) of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) face several challenges in assessing the value of robotic surgical platforms. As a result of using different assessment methods, previous HTAs have reached different conclusions when evaluating RAS. While the number of available systems and surgical procedures is rapidly growing, existing frameworks for assessing MedTech provide a starting point, but specific considerations are needed for HTAs of RAS to ensure consistent results. This work aimed to discuss different approaches and produce guidance on evaluating RAS.

methodsA consensus conference research methodology was adopted. A panel of 14 experts was assembled with international experience and representing relevant stakeholders: clinicians, health economists, HTA practitioners, policy makers, and industry. A review of previous HTAs was performed and seven key themes were extracted from the literature for consideration. Over five meetings, the panel discussed the key themes and formulated consensus statements.

resultsA total of ninety-eight previous HTAs were identified from twenty-five total countries. The seven key themes were evidence inclusion and exclusion, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, the learning curve, allocation of costs, appropriate time horizons, economic analysis methods, and robotic ecosystem/wider benefits.

conclusionsRobotic surgical platforms are tools, not therapies. Their value varies according to context and should be considered across therapeutic areas and stakeholders. The principles set out in this paper should help HTA bodies at all levels to evaluate RAS. This work may serve as a case study for rapidly developing areas in MedTech that require particular consideration for HTAs.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresEcosystemHumansLearning CurveResearch Designconsensus conferencehealth economicsHealth technology assessmentrobotic assisted surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID37272397
PMCPMC11570098

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.