Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018
Patient-specific mental rehearsal with interactive visual aids: a path worth exploring?
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of COVID-19 on Surgical Training: the Past, the Present and the Future.The Indian journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Professional Mental Rehearsal: the Power of "Imagination" in Nursing Skills Training.Materia socio-medica · 2021Article
- High-Performance Virtual Reality Volume Rendering of Original Optical Coherence Tomography Point-Cloud Data Enhanced With Real-Time Ray Casting.Translational vision science & technology · 2018Article
- Lessons From Other Disciplines About Communication, Human Performance and Situational Awareness While Wearing Personal Protective Equipment.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons of today are faced with unprecedented challenges; necessitating a novel approach to pre-operative preparation which takes into account the specific tests each case poses. In this study, we examine patient-specific mental rehearsal for pre-surgical practice and assess whether this method has an additional effect when compared to generic mental rehearsal.
methodsSixteen medical students were trained how to perform a simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC). After baseline assessments, they were randomised to two equal groups and asked to complete three SLCs involving different anatomical variants. Prior to each procedure, Group A practiced mental rehearsal with the use of a pre-prepared checklist and Group B mental rehearsal with the checklist combined with virtual models matching the anatomical variations of the SLCs. The performance of the two groups was compared using simulator provided metrics and competency assessment tool (CAT) scoring by two blinded assessors.
resultsThe participants performed equally well when presented with a "straight-forward" anatomy [Group A vs. Group B-time sec: 445.5 vs. 496 p = 0.64-NOM: 437 vs. 413 p = 0.88-PL cm: 1317 vs. 1059 p = 0.32-per: 0.5 vs. 0 p = 0.22-NCB: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.71-DVS: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.2]; however, Group B performed significantly better [Group A vs. B Total CAT score-Short Cystic Duct (SCD): 20.5 vs. 26.31 p = 0.02 η
conclusionThese results suggest that patient-specific preparation with the combination of anatomical models and mental rehearsal may increase operative quality of complex procedures.
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.