ReviewCurrent urology2019
Laparoscopic Training in Urology Residency Programs: A Systematic Review.
Review in Current urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of the European Laparoscopic Intermediate Urological Skills LUSs2 Curriculum: A Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology.European urology open science · 2024Article
- "Self-Designed Simulation-Based Laparoscopic Training Program for Urology Residents: Results After 6 Years of Experience".Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training.Current urology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsLaparoscopy is a widespread surgical approach for many urological conditions. Achieving prof-ciency in laparoscopic surgery requires considerable effort due to the steep learning curve. Several residency programs include standardized laparoscopic training periods in their curricula. Our aim was to systematically analyze the evidence on the current status of training in laparoscopy in different residency programs in urology.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane library, in February 2018, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the previously defined inclusion criteria. Eight publications, comprising a total of 985 urology residents, were selected for inclusion in this analysis.
resultsThere was a wide variation between training programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents considered that training in lap-aroscopy was inadequate during residency and had a low degree of confidence in independently performing laparo-scopic procedures by the end of the residency. Only North American residents reported high degrees of confidence in the possibility of performing laparoscopic procedures in the uture, whereas the remaining residents, namely from European countries, reported considerably lower degrees of confidence.
conclusionThere were considerable differences between national urology residency programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents would prefer higher exposure to laparoscopy throughout their residencies.
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.