Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28656341›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2017

Educational implications for surgical telementoring: a current review with recommendations for future practice, policy, and research.

K M Augestad, H Han, J Paige, T Ponsky, C M Schlachta, B Dunkin, J Mellinger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Educational value of surgical telementoring.Journal of surgical oncology · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

K M AugestadDepartment of Surgery, Oslo University Hospital AHUS, Oslo, Norway.
H HanDepartment of Medical Education, SIU School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA.
J PaigeDepartment of Surgery, LSU Health New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, USA.
T PonskyDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Akron Childrens Hospital, Akron, OH, USA.
C M SchlachtaDepartment of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
B DunkinDepartment of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
J MellingerDepartment of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA. jmellinger@siumed.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical telementoring (ST) was introduced in the sixties, promoting videoconferencing to enhance surgical education across large distances. Widespread use of ST in the surgical community is lacking. Despite numerous surveys assessing ST, there remains a lack of high-level scientific evidence demonstrating its impact on mentorship and surgical education. Despite this, there is an ongoing paradigm shift involving remote presence technologies and their application to skill development and technique dissemination in the international surgical community. Factors facilitating this include improved access to ST technology, including ease of use and data transmission, and affordability. Several international research initiatives have commenced to strengthen the scientific foundation documenting the impact of ST in surgical education and performance.

methodsInternational experts on ST were invited to the SAGES Project Six Summit in August 2015. Two experts in surgical education prepared relevant questions for discussion and organized the meeting (JP and HH). The questions were open-ended, and the discussion continued until no new item appeared. The transcripts of interviews were recorded by a secretary from SAGES.

resultsIn this paper, we present a summary of the work performed by the SAGES Project 6 Education Working Group. We summarize the existing evidence regarding education in ST, identify and detail conceptual educational frameworks that may be used during ST, and present a structured framework for an educational curriculum in ST.

conclusionsThe educational impact and optimal curricular organization of ST programs are largely unexplored. We outline the critical components of a structured ST curriculum, including prerequisites, teaching modalities, and key curricular components. We also detail research strategies critical to its continued evolution as an educational tool, including randomized controlled trials, establishment of a quality registry, qualitative research, learning analytics, and development of a standardized taxonomy.

Indexed as

MentorsClinical CompetenceCurriculumEducation, MedicalGeneral SurgeryHumansTelemedicineHealth policySurgical educationSurgical technologySurgical trainingTelemedicineTelementoring

Identifiers

PMID28656341

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.