Robotic colorectal surgery: quality assessment of patient information available on the internet using webscraping

References

• Cheng CL, Rezac C. The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. BMJ. 2018;360;:j5304–71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: colon and rectum. Cancer J. 2013;19(2):140–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Addison P, Agnew JL, Martz J. Robotic colorectal surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100(2):337–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells LE, Smith B, Honaker MD. Rate of conversion to an open procedure is reduced in patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery: a single-institution experience. J Minim Access Surg. 2020; 16(3):229–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, et al. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 2005(3):CD003145.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mirnezami AH, Mirnezami R, Venkatasubramaniam AK, et al. Robotic colorectal surgery: hype or new hope? A systematic review of robotics in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(11):1084–1093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papanikolaou IG. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24(6):478–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mabrut J-Y, Fernandez-Cruz L, Azagra JS,et al. Laparoscopicpancreatic resection: results of a multicenter European study of 127 patients. Surgery. 2005;137(6):597–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM. Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2397–2402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hettiarachchi TS, Askari A, Rudge E, Hao LT, Sarwar S, Dowsett D, El Hadi A, Shaikh I. Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic left-sided colorectal cancer resections. J Robotic Surg.2023 Feb;17(1):205-213. doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01414-9. Epub 2022 May 24. PMID: 35610541; PMCID: PMC9129896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26(1):1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChicagoColorectal. Robotic Surgery: About Da Vinci system [Internet]. 2021. [cited 2021 Nov 2]. Available from: https://chicagocolorectal.com/da-vinci-surgery/the-da-vinci-surgicalsystem.
   Google Scholar
• Morelli L, Guadagni S, Caprili G, et al. Robotic right colectomy using the Da Vinci Single-Site® platform: case report. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9(3):258–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngu JC, Tsang CB, Koh DC. The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potentialrole in robotic colorectal surgery. Robot Surg. 2017;4:77–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• North Kansas City Hospital. NKCH Adds Second Da Vinci Xi Robot to Surgical Services [Internet]. 2019. [cited 2021 Nov 2]. Available from: https://www.nkch.org/forproviders/newsletter/physicianconnections-articles/past-issues/2019/novemberdecember/nkch-adds-second-da-vinci-xi-robot-tosurgical.
   Google Scholar
• Hill A, McCormick J. In experienced hands, does the robotic platform impact operative efficiency? Comparison of the da Vinci Si versus Xi robot in colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(5):789–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R. Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018; Mar12(1):67–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Schans EM, Hiep MA, Consten EC, et al. From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(6):835–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo D, Liu Y, Zhu H, et al. The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2020; 34(8):3368–3374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae SU, Jeong WK, Bae OS, et al. Reduced-port robotic anterior resection for left-sided colon cancer using the Da Vinci single-site® platform. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(3):517–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North West Colorectal Health. Da Vinci Robotic Surgery: Colorectal Surgery [Internet]. n.d [cited 2021 Nov 2]. Available from: https://www.nwcch.com/services-davinci-colorectalsurgeryportland-oregon.html.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson L. Beautiful soup documentation. April. 2007;.
   Google Scholar
• Salunke SS.. Selenium webdriver in Python: learn with examples. (1st. ed.). North Charleston, SC, USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform;2014.
   Google Scholar
• Gs.statcounter.com. 2015. StatCounter Global Stats - Browser, OS, Search Engine including Mobile Usage Share. [online] Available at: <https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/desktop/worldwide. > [Accessed 10 November 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Bianco A, Zucco R, Nobile CG, et al. Parents seeking health-related information on the internet: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(9):e204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell R. 2018. Web scraping with python, 2e. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN: 9781491985571.
   Google Scholar
• Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70(3):407–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frueh FS, Palma AF, Raptis DA, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis of online patient information with the EQIP tool. Chir Main. 2015;34(3):113–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Melloul E, Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, et al. Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found? Liver Transpl. 2012;18(8):892–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palma AF, Zuk G, Raptis DA, et al. Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2016;50(5):262–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross A. Malaga, search engine optimization – black and white hat approaches, advances in computers. Elsevier. 2010;78:1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserman M, Baxter NN, Rosen B, et al. Systematic review of internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(1):64–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huck SW. Reading statistics and research., 4th edn. Boston: Pearson Education, 2004. google sholar
   Google Scholar
• McCool ME, Wahl J, Schlecht I, et al. Evaluating written patient information for eczema in German: comparing the reliability of two instruments, DISCERN and EQIP. PLOS One. 2015;10(10):e0139895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H, et al. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect. 2004;7(2):165–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar