Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31573088›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2019

Systematic review of the current status of cadaveric simulation for surgical training.

H K James, A W Chapman, G T R Pattison, D R Griffin, J D Fisher

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating the Efficacy of a Novel Multimaterial 3D-Printed Phantom for Otologic Surgical Education and Simulation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

H K JamesClinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0535-3062
A W ChapmanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
G T R PattisonDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
D R GriffinClinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
J D FisherClinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.

Funding

Versus Arthritis 20485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing interest in and provision of cadaveric simulation courses for surgical trainees. This is being driven by the need to modernize and improve the efficiency of surgical training within the current challenging training climate. The objective of this systematic review is to describe and evaluate the evidence for cadaveric simulation in postgraduate surgical training.

methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review of studies that prospectively evaluated a cadaveric simulation training intervention for surgical trainees was undertaken. All relevant databases and trial registries were searched to January 2019. Methodological rigour was assessed using the widely validated Medical Education Research Quality Index (MERSQI) tool.

resultsA total of 51 studies were included, involving 2002 surgical trainees across 69 cadaveric training interventions. Of these, 22 assessed the impact of the cadaveric training intervention using only subjective measures, five measured impact by change in learner knowledge, and 23 used objective tools to assess change in learner behaviour after training. Only one study assessed patient outcome and demonstrated transfer of skill from the simulated environment to the workplace. Of the included studies, 67 per cent had weak methodology (MERSQI score less than 10·7).

conclusionThere is an abundance of relatively low-quality evidence showing that cadaveric simulation induces short-term skill acquisition as measured by objective means. There is currently a lack of evidence of skill retention, and of transfer of skills following training into the live operating theatre.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceComputer SimulationCadaverEducation, Medical, GraduateGeneral SurgeryHumansSimulation Training

Identifiers

PMID31573088
PMCPMC6900127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.