ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Assessing the effect of the critical view of safety criteria on simulated operative decision-making: a pilot study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are YouTube Videos a Reliable Training Method for Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy? A Simulated Decision-Making Exercise to Assess the Critical View of Safety.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Formalizing video documentation of the Critical View of Safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a step towards artificial intelligence assistance to improve surgical safety.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite well-established criteria for identifying the critical view of safety (CVS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, its impact on intraoperative decision-making among trainees is unclear.
methodsGeneral surgery interns (n = 10) viewed a training module on the CVS criteria and then independently reviewed 20 cholecystectomy videos lasting 1 min each edited at various points of CVS dissection to include examples of both adequate and inadequate dissections. Participants were asked to identify the following CVS criteria for each video-(1) clearance of fat from the hepatocystic triangle; (2) exposure of the cystic plate; and (3) two and only two structures entering the gallbladder-and then decide if the structures were safe to divide.
resultsInter-rater agreement for each CVS criteria varied: (1) (k = 0.2510), (2) (k = 0.2771), and (3) (k = 0.4298) as did the decision to divide critical structures (k = 0.371). Individual mean rate of dividing structures ranged 5-50% and did not correlate with the total number of CVS criteria identified by each participant (Spearman's rho = 0.247, p = 0.492). Division of structures with incomplete CVS identification occurred in 15% of cases and was isolated to one participant in the majority of cases (88%). Among these cases, omission of the cystic plate dissection occurred in every instance.
conclusionsIdentification of CVS criteria was not uniform with the least amount of agreement on adequate hepatocystic and cystic plate dissection. Individual variation also exists between identification of CVS criteria and likelihood to divide structures. Video-based assessments that include intraoperative decision-making can help assess individual perceptions of safe practices without the risk of harm to the patient.
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.