Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28444497›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Evaluation of crowd-sourced assessment of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Shanley B Deal, Dimitrios Stefanidis, Dana Telem, Robert D Fanelli, Marian McDonald, Michael Ujiki, L Michael Brunt, Adnan A Alseidi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Video-based assessment of intraoperative surgical skill.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Shanley B DealGraduate Medical Education, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Mailstop H8-GME, 1100 9th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98101, USA. Shanley.Deal@virginiamason.org.
Dimitrios StefanidisDepartment of Surgery, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Dana TelemDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Robert D FanelliDepartment of Surgery, The Guthrie Clinic, Sayre, PA, USA.
Marian McDonaldGeneral Surgery, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Michael UjikiGeneral Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
L Michael BruntDepartment of Surgery, Washington University St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Adnan A AlseidiDepartment of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Benaroya Research Insititue, Digestive Disease Institute 0920401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaculty experts (FE) and crowd workers (CW) can assess technical skill, but assessment of operative technique has not been explored. We sought to evaluate if CW could be taught to assess completion of the critical view of safety (CVS) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

methodsWe prepared 160 blinded, surgical videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy from public domain websites. Videos were edited to ≤60 s, ending when a structure was cut/clipped. CW analyzed videos using Global Objective Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and CVS criteria assessment tools after watching an instructional tutorial. Ten videos were randomly selected from each performance quartile based on GOALS. Five FE rated the 40 videos using GOALS and CVS. Linear mixed effects models derived average CW and FE ratings for GOALS and CVS for each video. Spearman correlation coefficients (SCC) were used to assess the degree of correlation between performance measures. Satisfactory completion of the CVS was defined as scoring an average CVS ≥ 5. Videos with an average GOALS ≥ 15 were considered top technical performers.

resultsA high degree of correlation was seen between all performance measures: CVS ratings between CW and FE, SCC 0.89 (p < 0.001); GOALS and CVS ratings SCC 0.77 (p < 0.001) for CW, and SCC 0.71 (p < 0.001) for FE. Sixteen videos were assigned top technical performer ratings by both CW and FE but the average CVS was inadequate (3.8 and 3.6, respectively), and the percentage of satisfactory CVS ≥ 5 was 12.5%.

conclusionsA high degree of correlation was found between CW and FE in assessment of the CVS. However, in this video analysis, high technical performers did not achieve a complete CVS in most cases. Educating CW to assess operative technique for the identification of low or average performers is feasible and may broaden the application of this assessment and feedback tool.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyVideo RecordingYoung AdultCritical view of safetyCrowd-sourced assessment of technical skillGOALSLaparoscopic cholecystectomyVideo-based education

Identifiers

PMID28444497

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.