ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Development and validation of surgical training tool: cystectomy assessment and surgical evaluation (CASE) for robot-assisted radical cystectomy for men.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review.The British journal of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Development and validation of a simulation training platform for the ligation of deep dorsal vein complex in radical prostatectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Objective assessment of robotic surgical skills: review of literature and future directions.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training.Current urology reports · 2021Review
- A computer vision technique for automated assessment of surgical performance using surgeons' console-feed videos.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to develop a structured scoring tool: cystectomy assessment and surgical evaluation (CASE) that objectively measures and quantifies performance during robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for men.
methodsA multinational 10-surgeon expert panel collaborated towards development and validation of CASE. The critical steps of RARC in men were deconstructed into nine key domains, each assessed by five anchors. Content validation was done utilizing the Delphi methodology. Each anchor was assessed in terms of context, score concordance, and clarity. The content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each aspect. A CVI ≥ 0.75 represented consensus, and this statement was removed from the next round. This process was repeated until consensus was achieved for all statements. CASE was used to assess de-identified videos of RARC to determine reliability and construct validity. Linearly weighted percent agreement was used to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR). A logit model for odds ratio (OR) was used to assess construct validation.
resultsThe expert panel reached consensus on CASE after four rounds. The final eight domains of the CASE included: pelvic lymph node dissection, development of the peri-ureteral space, lateral pelvic space, anterior rectal space, control of the vascular pedicle, anterior vesical space, control of the dorsal venous complex, and apical dissection. IRR > 0.6 was achieved for all eight domains. Experts outperformed trainees across all domains.
conclusionWe developed and validated a reliable structured, procedure-specific tool for objective evaluation of surgical performance during RARC. CASE may help differentiate novice from expert performances.
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.