ArticleIrish journal of medical science2019
Validation of a virtual reality laparoscopic appendicectomy simulator: a novel process using cognitive task analysis.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Pooled it
- Innovative approaches to pericardiocentesis training: a comparative study of 3D-printed and virtual reality simulation models.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- Ergonomics in Laparoscopic Box Training and Virtual Reality (VR) Simulations: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Review
- Validity assessment of the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy module of the LapVision virtual reality simulator.Surgery open science · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) simulation is a vital component of surgical training with demonstrated improvements in surgical quality and clinical outcome.
aimsTo validate the LAP Mentor (Simbionix™) laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) VR simulator with inclusion of a novel tool, Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA).
methodsThirty-two novices and nine experienced surgeons performed two simulated LAs. An expert-consensus questionnaire guided face validity assessment. Content validity was assessed using CTA-derived questions encompassing eight operative steps and four decision points. Construct validity was evaluated using dexterity metrics, masked assessment of surgical quality using the OSATS global rating scale, and mental workload from two validated tools: the NASA-TLX and SMEQ. Ten novices performed eight further LAs for learning curve assessment.
resultsFace validity was demonstrated across all domains. Considering content validity, the essential technical and non-technical steps were evident. The experienced group performed the procedure quicker (median time 361 vs. 538 s, P = 0.0039) with fewer total movements (426 vs. 641, P < 0.0001) and shorter idle time (131 vs. 199 s, P = 0.0006). This correlated with higher OSATS scores (median 33.5 vs. 22.2, P < 0.0001) and lower mental demand (NASA-TLX: 9.0 vs. 13.75, P = 0.012; SMEQ: 60 vs. 80, P = 0.0025), indicating construct validity. Learning curve data showed statistically significant improvements after the 7th session for procedure time, total movements and idle time, which correlated with reduction in mental demand.
conclusionsThe LAP Mentor demonstrates face, content and construct validity for LA; thus, it can be used as an effective tool in surgical training. Task repetition leads to achievement of expert benchmarks.
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.