Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18952942›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Validation of knowledge acquisition for surgical process models.

Thomas Neumuth, Pierre Jannin, Gero Strauss, Juergen Meixensberger, Oliver Burgert

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05993845 (Modeling and Workflow Recognition for the Anterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05993845 recruitingnot on this map

Modeling and Workflow Recognition for the Anterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty

TypeobservationalSponsorPhilipp FürnstahlRan2024 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsHip ProsthesisArmsRecording of total hip arthroplasty
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Movement-level process modeling of microsurgical bimanual and unimanual tasks.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Toward a standard ontology of surgical process models.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2018
    Article
  8. The intelligent OR: design and validation of a context-aware surgical working environment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2018
    Article
  9. Surgical process modeling.Innovative surgical sciences · 2017
    Review
  10. Toward cognitive pipelines of medical assistance algorithms.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016
    Review
  11. Bridging the gap between formal and experience-based knowledge for context-aware laparoscopy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016
    Article
  12. Procedural surgical skill assessment in laparoscopic training environments.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. LapOntoSPM: an ontology for laparoscopic surgeries and its application to surgical phase recognition.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Surgical task analysis of simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a navigation system.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2014
    Article
  18. Surgical process modelling: a review.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2014
    Review
  19. Requirements for the structured recording of surgical device data in the digital operating room.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2014
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas NeumuthUniversity of Leipzig, Innovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery, Semmelweisstr. 14, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. thomas.neumuth@iccas.de
Pierre Jannin
Gero Strauss
Juergen Meixensberger
Oliver Burgert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSurgical Process Models (SPMs) are models of surgical interventions. The objectives of this study are to validate acquisition methods for Surgical Process Models and to assess the performance of different observer populations.

designThe study examined 180 SPM of simulated Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgeries (FESS), recorded with observation software. About 150,000 single measurements in total were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS: Validation metrics were used for assessing the granularity, content accuracy, and temporal accuracy of structures of SPMs.

resultsDifferences between live observations and video observations are not statistically significant. Observations performed by subjects with medical backgrounds gave better results than observations performed by subjects with technical backgrounds. Granularity was reconstructed correctly by 90%, content by 91%, and the mean temporal accuracy was 1.8 s.

conclusionThe study shows the validity of video as well as live observations for modeling Surgical Process Models. For routine use, the authors recommend live observations due to their flexibility and effectiveness. If high precision is needed or the SPM parameters are altered during the study, video observations are the preferable approach.

Indexed as

Models, AnatomicSoftwareTask Performance and AnalysisHumansSoftware DesignUser-Computer InterfaceVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID18952942
PMCPMC2605601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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 OpenQuestion graph.