©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Nov 27, 2025; 17(11): 109989
Published online Nov 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i11.109989
Published online Nov 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i11.109989
Table 6 Methodological quality (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 assessment)
| Ref. | Confidence rating | Key strengths | Key limitations |
| Safiejko et al[6] | Moderate | Direct RLR vs LLR comparison | Retrospective dominance, no RCTs |
| Machairas et al[7] | Low | Focus on SRAR | Small cohort, no comparator group |
| Mkabaah et al[9] | High | Large sample, subgroup analyses | Heterogeneity in study designs |
| Ho et al[12] | Low | Early RLR adoption data | Outdated, mixed malignancies included |
| McGuirk et al[13] | Low | Detailed technical insights | Small sample, case series bias |
- Citation: Ardila CM, Zuluaga-Gómez M, González-Arroyave D. Robotic liver surgery for metastatic disease: A review of safety, feasibility, and outcomes. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(11): 109989
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i11/109989.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i11.109989