ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Face and content validation of a Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery Trainer (VTEST™).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends in virtual reality surgical simulation for education: a systematic review.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Review
- Validity of task-specific metrics for assessment in perineal proctectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Face, content, and construct validity of the virtual immersive operating room simulator for training laparoscopic procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Objective metrics for hand-sewn bowel anastomoses can differentiate novice from expert surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Study on Collision Detection and Force Feedback Algorithm in Virtual Surgery.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an emerging surgical paradigm, where peritoneal access is achieved through one of the natural orifices of the body. It is being reported as a safe and feasible surgical technique with significantly reduced external scarring. Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgical Trainer (VTEST™) is the first virtual reality simulator for the NOTES. The VTEST™ simulator was developed to train surgeons in the hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy procedure. The initial version of the VTEST™ simulator underwent face validation at the 2013 Natural Orifice Surgery Consortium for Assessment and Research (NOSCAR) summit. Several areas of improvement were identified as a result, and the corresponding modifications were implemented in the simulator. This manuscript outlines the results of the subsequent evaluation study, performed in order to assess the face and content validity of the latest VTEST™ simulator.
methodsTwelve subjects participated in an institutional review board-approved study that took place at the 2014 NOSCAR summit. Six of the 12 subjects, who are experts with NOTES experience, were used for face and content validation. The subjects performed the hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy procedure on VTEST™ that included identifying the Calot's triangle, clipping and cutting the cystic duct/artery, and detaching the gallbladder. The subjects then answered five-point Likert scale feedback questionnaires for face and content validity.
resultsOverall, subjects rated 12/15 questions as 3.0 or greater (60 %), for face validity questions regarding the realism of the anatomical features, interface, and the tasks. Subjects also highly rated the usefulness of the simulator in learning the fundamental NOTES technical skills (3.50 ± 0.84). Content validity results indicate a high level of usefulness of the VTEST™ for training prior to operating room experience (4.17 ± 0.75).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.