ArticleSurgical innovation2017
Validation of NOViSE.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends in virtual reality surgical simulation for education: a systematic review.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Review
- Implementation of a Virtual Reality Based Digital-Twin Robotic Minimally Invasive Surgery Simulator.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- VCSim3: a VR simulator for cardiovascular interventions.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2018Article
- A Novel Nonlinear Parameter Estimation Method of Soft Tissues.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to establish face, content, and construct validity of NOViSE-the first force-feedback enabled virtual reality (VR) simulator for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Fourteen surgeons and surgical trainees performed 3 simulated hybrid transgastric cholecystectomies using a flexible endoscope on NOViSE. Four of them were classified as "NOTES experts" who had independently performed 10 or more simulated or human NOTES procedures. Seven participants were classified as "Novices" and 3 as "Gastroenterologists" with no or minimal NOTES experience. A standardized 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire was administered to assess the face and content validity. NOViSE showed good overall face and content validity. In 14 out of 15 statements pertaining to face validity (graphical appearance, endoscope and tissue behavior, overall realism), ≥50% of responses were "agree" or "strongly agree." In terms of content validity, 85.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that NOViSE is a useful training tool for NOTES and 71.4% that they would recommend it to others. Construct validity was established by comparing a number of performance metrics such as task completion times, path lengths, applied forces, and so on. NOViSE demonstrated early signs of construct validity. Experts were faster and used a shorter endoscopic path length than novices in all but one task. The results indicate that NOViSE authentically recreates a transgastric hybrid cholecystectomy and sets promising foundations for the further development of a VR training curriculum for NOTES without compromising patient safety or requiring expensive animal facilities.
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.