ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Simulation platforms to assess laparoscopic suturing skills: a scoping review.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing skill acquisition: the role of self-assessment during a continuous training program for laparoscopic suturing.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Construct Validity of a Novel Assessment System for Laparoscopic Suture Accuracy Based on Stereoscopy.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Establishing validity evidence for device-assisted advanced laparoscopic suturing tasks using simulation.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Distinguishing Intermediate and Novice Surgeons by Eye Movements.Frontiers in psychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic suturing (LS) has become a common technique used in a variety of advanced laparoscopic procedures. However, LS is a challenging skill to master, and many trainees may not be competent in performing LS at the end of their training. The purpose of this review is to identify simulation platforms available for assessment of LS skills, and determine the characteristics of the platforms and the LS skills that are targeted.
methodsA scoping review was conducted between January 1997 and October 2018 for full-text articles. The search was done in various databases. Only articles written in English or French were included. Additional studies were identified through reference lists. The search terms included "laparoscopic suturing" and "clinical competence."
resultsSixty-two studies were selected. The majority of the simulation platforms were box trainers with inanimate tissue, and targeted basic suturing and intracorporeal knot-tying techniques. Most of the validation came from internal structure (rater reliability) and relationship to other variables (compare training levels/case experience, and various metrics). Consequences were not addressed in any of the studies.
conclusionWe identified many types of simulation platforms that were used for assessing LS skills, with most being for assessment of basic skills. Platforms assessing the competence of trainees for advanced LS skills were limited. Therefore, future research should focus on development of LS tasks that better reflect the needs of the trainees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31089881What 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.