Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39333303›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2025

Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.

Tzu-Jung Lai, Robert Heggie, Hanin-Farhana Kamaruzaman, Janet Bouttell, Kathleen Boyd

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy using DEXTERFacts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tzu-Jung LaiHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. t.lai.1@research.gla.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0919-7677
Robert HeggieHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Hanin-Farhana KamaruzamanHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Janet BouttellHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kathleen BoydHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is growing rapidly. However, economic evaluation of this technology is challenging. This study aims to identify and discuss the different economic evaluation methods which have been used to evaluate RAS.

methodThis scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

resultsA total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.

conclusionsThis review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumans

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.