Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28281111›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2017

Validation of the mobile serious game application Touch Surgery™ for cognitive training and assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Jonathan D Hendrie, Mona W Schmidt, Tanja Proctor, Sai Paul, Carly R Garrow, Hannes G Kenngott, Beat P Müller-Stich, Felix Nickel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

9 authors.

Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jonathan D HendrieDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mona W SchmidtDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tanja ProctorDepartment of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sai PaulDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carly R GarrowDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hannes G KenngottDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Beat P Müller-StichDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. felix.nickel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTouch Surgery

methodsThe performance of medical students and general surgeons was compared for all three modules of LC in TS to establish construct validity. Questionnaires assessed face and content validity. For analysis of learning curves, students were randomized to train on VR or TS first, and then switched to the other training modality. Performance data were recorded.

results54 Surgeons and 51 medical students completed the validation study. Surgeons outperformed students with TS: patient preparation (students = 45.0 ± 19.1%; surgeons = 57.3 ± 15.2%; p < 0.001), access and laparoscopy (students = 70.2 ± 10.9%; surgeons = 75.9 ± 9.7%; p = 0.008) and LC (students = 69.8 ± 12.4%; surgeons = 77.7 ± 9.6%; p < 0.001). Both groups agreed that TS was a highly useful and realistic application. 46 students were randomized for learning curve analysis. It took them 2-4 attempts to reach a 100% score with TS. Training with TS first did not improve students' performance on the VR trainer; however, students who trained with VR first scored significantly higher in module 3 of TS.

conclusionTS is an accepted serious gaming application for learning cognitive aspects of LC with established construct, face, and content validity. There appeared to be a synergy between TS and the VR trainer. Therefore, the two training modalities should accompany one another in a multimodal training approach to laparoscopy.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdultCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicClinical CompetenceCognitionComputer SimulationEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansLearning CurveMaleMobile ApplicationsPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsStudents, MedicalSurgeonsCholecystectomyEducationLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgeryTouch Surgery

Identifiers

PMID28281111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.