ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2018
Contrasting groups' standard setting for consequences analysis in validity studies: reporting considerations.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transferability of the robot assisted and laparoscopic suturing learning curves.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Trial
- Development of an affordable, immersive model for robotic vaginal cuff closure: a randomized trial.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Trial
- Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills in Mastoidectomy Using 3D-Printed Temporal Bones.The Laryngoscope · 2026Observational
- Video-Based Tool for Assessment of Airway Management With Flexible Laryngeal Mask in Clinical Practice-A Protocol for a Study Gathering Validity Evidence.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Ensuring flexible optical intubation skills using a portable virtual reality simulator - a validation study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Automatic metrics from a new colon phantom can ensure basic competency in colonoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Validation of simulator-based neuroangiographical training.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Article
- Using virtual reality simulation to ensure laparoscopic camera navigation skills of new surgical assistants-a validation study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a multiple-choice test for head and neck ultrasound certification.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of Basic Skills in Ultrasound-Based Neuraxial Access-A Protocol of a Study Gathering Validity Evidence.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Competency in Robotic Surgery: Standard Setting for Robotic Suturing Using Objective Assessment and Expert Evaluation.Journal of surgical education · 2024Article
- Surgical gestures can be used to assess surgical competence in robot-assisted surgery : A validity investigating study of simulated RARP.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Simulation-based assessment of upper abdominal ultrasound skills.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Simulation-based assessment of robotic cardiac surgery skills: An international multicenter, cross-specialty trial.JTCVS open · 2023Article
- Using a novel virtual-reality simulator to assess performance in lumbar puncture: a validation study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Gathering validity evidence for a 3D-printed simulator for training of myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
- A validated test has been developed for assessment of manual small incision cataract surgery skills using virtual reality simulation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Using Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays to Assess Skills in Emergency Medicine: Validity Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Objective structured clinical examination in basic thoracic ultrasound: a European study of validity evidence.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe contrasting groups' standard setting method is commonly used for consequences analysis in validity studies for performance in medicine and surgery. The method identifies a pass/fail cut-off score, from which it is possible to determine false positives and false negatives based on observed numbers in each group. Since groups in validity studies are often small, e.g., due to a limited number of experts, these analyses are sensitive to outliers on the normal distribution curve.
methodsWe propose that these shortcomings can be addressed in a simple manner using the cumulative distribution function.
resultsWe demonstrate considerable absolute differences between the observed false positives/negatives and the theoretical false positives/negatives. In addition, several important examples are given.
conclusionsWe propose that a better reporting strategy is to report theoretical false positives and false negatives together with the observed false positives and negatives, and we have developed an Excel sheet to facilitate such calculations.
trial registrationNot relevant.
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.