Introduction Bibliometric analyses are a method of evaluating the quality of research output in a certain domain. Robotic surgery has made vast leaps during the past 20 years and this paper aimed to assess some of the main areas of research using this method. Methods A search was undertaken for documents published between 2001 and 2021 from the World of Science database, using the keywords ‘robotic surgery’, ‘robotic assisted surgery’ and ‘robotic-assisted surgery. Results were compared using numerous bibliometric methodologies, and stratified by source-specific metrics, author-specific metrics and country-specific metrics. Results The search yielded 3839 documents, from 879 different sources. Only 2% of sources were found to be within Bradford’s Zone 1 of research and the most relevant sources were from the field of urology. The Journal of Urology and Surgical Endoscopy and other Techniques ranked highly among metrics such as H, G, M index and total citations. The top-rated authors had a H index of 15 in the field of robotic surgery and the total citations reached a peak at 1342. The USA, Japan and Italy were the most productive nations and increased collaborative research is leading to a greater number of multiple-centre publications. Conclusion Research into robotic surgery is still in its infancy with further reviews of the literature and greater output through large randomised controlled trials in multiple centres through collaborative research needed.
Purpose The COVID 19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus the importance of leadership and the ethics of health-care leadership. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of COVID 19 on ethical leadership principles using a validated quantitative survey of NHS leaders to compare pre- and post-pandemic ethical leadership principles. Design/methodology/approach This study involved a quantitative survey of NHS “leaders”. Inclusion criteria included consultants and registrars leading clinical teams, or NHS managers, senior nurses and matrons. The survey was designed as a modification of the Ethical Leadership Questionnaire proposed by Langlois et al. (2013). A modification was made to ask questions from the questionnaire pertaining to before the pandemic and presently. This allowed a comparison of responses and measures of ethical leadership qualities before and after the pandemic. Twenty-three questions were on attitudes pre-pandemic, and 23 were post-pandemic. Findings A total of 79 responses were received. Responses were divided for analysis into those related to an ethics of care dimension, those related to ethics of justice and those related to the ethics of critique. This study has found significant changes in attitudes of health-care leaders with regards to the ethics of critique. Leaders were more likely post-pandemic to speak out against injustice and unfair practices. Leaders were also more concerned with matters of human dignity as well as understanding how some groups may be privileged. Other ethical principles showed no statistical difference. Originality/value This paper highlights the changes the COVID-19 pandemic has had on leaders’ attitudes to ethics.
Leadership priorities within the healthcare setting have been brought into sharp focus by the Covid 19 pandemic, coinciding with the Black Lives Matter movement, Me Too movement, PPE shortages and staffing crises. Appropriately championing the rights of such staff is imperative. The pandemic necessitates a period of rigorous self-analysis, recognising past failures, oversights and discriminations. Utilising a modified ethical leadership questionnaire, comparing pre- and post-pandemic views of healthcare leaders on their own ethical leadership values, this study demonstrates a novel research into the effects of the pandemic on this topic. Our study has found significant changes in attitudes of healthcare leaders with regards to the ethics of justice; fewer leaders were likely to hold formal investigations and more leaders would follow unwritten rules relating to an ethical dilemma. They also would pay more attention to individuals. In addition, in terms of critique, leaders were more likely post-pandemic to speak out against injustice and unfair practices although whether this is due to the pandemic solely, or social movements such as Black Lives Matter and Me Too is yet unknown.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.