Because surgical skill may be a key determinant of patient outcomes, there is growing interest in skill assessment. In the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), we assessed whether peer and crowd-sourced (ie, layperson) video review of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) could distinguish technical skill among practicing surgeons. A total of 76 video clips from 12 MUSIC surgeons consisted of one of four parts of RARP and underwent blinded review by MUSIC peer surgeons and prequalified crowd-sourced reviewers. Videos were rated for global skill (Global Evaluation Assessment of Robotic Skills) and procedure-specific skill (Robotic Anastomosis and Competency Evaluation). We fit linear mixed-effects models to estimate mean peer and crowd ratings for each video. Individual video ratings were aggregated to calculate surgeon skill scores. Peers (n=25) completed 351 video ratings over 15 d, whereas crowd-sourced reviewers (n=680) completed 2990 video ratings in 38h. Surgeon global skill scores ranged from 15.8 to 21.7 (peer) and from 19.2 to 20.9 (crowd). Peer and crowd ratings demonstrated strong correlation for both global (r=0.78) and anastomosis (r=0.74) skills. The two groups consistently agreed on the rank order of lower scoring surgeons, suggesting a potential role for crowd-sourced methodology in the assessment of surgical performance. Lack of patient outcomes is a limitation and forms the basis of future study.
We demonstrated the large-scale feasibility of assessing the technical skill of robotic surgeons and found that online crowd-sourced reviewers agreed with experts on the rank order of surgeons with the lowest technical skill scores.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2025.
All research outputs
#3,787,820
of 29,583,705 outputs
Outputs from European Urology
#2,369
of 7,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,983
of 413,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Urology
#56
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,583,705 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 413,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
