Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31953730›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020

Use of prefrontal cortex activity as a measure of learning curve in surgical novices: results of a single blind randomised controlled trial.

Howard C H Khoe, Jun Wei Low, Sujith Wijerathne, Lui Su Ann, Hrishikesh Salgaonkar, Davide Lomanto, JongKwan Choi, JiYeong Baek, Wilson W Tam, Ho Pei and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Howard C H KhoeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. howardkhoe@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8012-4884
Jun Wei LowYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sujith WijerathneMinimally Invasive Surgery Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Lui Su AnnMinimally Invasive Surgery Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Hrishikesh SalgaonkarMinimally Invasive Surgery Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Davide LomantoMinimally Invasive Surgery Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
JongKwan ChoiOBELAB, Inc, Seoul, South Korea.
JiYeong BaekOBELAB, Inc, Seoul, South Korea.
Wilson W TamAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ho PeiUniversity Surgical Cluster, Department of Cardio-Thoracic & Vascular Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Roger C M HoInstitute for Health Innovation & Technology (iHealthtech), National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore, 117599, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeurobiological feedback in surgical training could translate to better educational outcomes such as measures of learning curve. This work examined the variation in brain activation of medical students when performing laparoscopic tasks before and after a training workshop, using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This single blind randomised controlled trial examined the prefrontal cortex activity (PFCA) differences in two groups of novice medical students during the acquisition of four laparoscopic tasks. Both groups were shown a basic tutorial video, with the "Trained-group" receiving an additional standardised one-to-one training on the tasks. The PFCA was measured pre- and post-intervention using a portable fNIRS device and reported as mean total oxygenated hemoglobin (HbOµm). Primary outcome of the study is the difference in HbOµm between post- and pre-intervention readings for each of the four laparoscopic tasks. The pre- and post-intervention laparoscopic tasks were recorded and assessed by two blinded individual assessors for objective scores of the performance.

results16 Trained and 16 Untrained, right-handed medical students with an equal sex distribution and comparable age distribution were recruited. Trained group had an attenuated left PFCA in the "Precision cutting" (p = 0.007) task compared to the Untrained group. Subgroup analysis by sex revealed attenuation in left PFCA in Trained females compared to Untrained females across two laparoscopic tasks: "Peg transfer" (p = 0.005) and "Precision cutting" (p = 0.003). No significant PFCA attenuation was found in male students who underwent training compared to Untrained males.

conclusionA standardised laparoscopic training workshop promoted greater PFCA attenuation in female medical students compared to males. This suggests that female and male students respond differently to the same instructional approach. Implications include a greater focus on one-to-one surgical training for female students and use of PFCA attenuation as a form of neurobiological feedback in surgical training.

Indexed as

Learning CurveStudents, MedicalAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMalePrefrontal CortexSingle-Blind MethodSurgical Procedures, OperativeYoung AdultCortical activationFunctional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)Laparoscopic skillMedical educationPrefrontal cortexSex differences

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.