Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32040716›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Design, implementation, and evaluation of a novel curriculum to teach transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): a 3-year experience of urology simulation bootcamp course.

Mithun Kailavasan, Christopher Berridge, Grigorios Athanasiadis, Agapios Gkentzis, Bhavan Rai, Sunjay Jain, Chandra S Biyani, Ghulam Nabi

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The state of TURP through a historical lens.World journal of urology · 2021
    Article
  11. Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training.Current urology reports · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Mithun KailavasanBirmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Christopher BerridgeLeicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Grigorios AthanasiadisAberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Agapios GkentzisRoyal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK.
Bhavan RaiFreeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Sunjay JainSt James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, UK.
Chandra S BiyaniSt James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, UK. shekharbiyani@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3443-8425
Ghulam NabiNinewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
St James's University Hospital · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBFreeman Hospital · GBHeartlands Hospital · GBLeicester General Hospital · GBNinewells Hospital · GBRoyal Bolton Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo present the three-year experience of the multi-component TURP module at Urology Simulation Bootcamp Course (USBC) and demonstrate trainee's competence progression and satisfaction.

methodsDuring the USBC, a 4-h TURP module was developed and consisted of (a) familiarisation and assembly of resectoscope instrument, (b) didactic lecture on TURP operative techniques and postoperative complications, (c) learning hands-on resection on validated simulators [Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany; TURP Mentor™, Simbionix, Israel], and (d) practicing clot evacuation using the Ellik bladder Evacuator. Trainee's level of instrument knowledge, operative competence, and confidence were assessed pre- and post-course. Trainee's feedback was also collected.

resultsOne hundred thirty trainees participated in the USBC between 2016 and 2018. Eighty-seven percent of trainees scored themselves as 1-3 (low confidence in resection) on a 5-point Likert scale. Trainees significantly improved in their ability to perform resectoscope assembly for resection, coagulation and incision by 33.6% (p < 0.001), 28.1% (p < 0.001) and 34.0% (p < 0.001), respectively. There was a significant improvement in scores in itemised technical skill on the TURP simulator following completion of the TURP module (Mean difference = 3.4 points, 95% CI 2-4, p < 0.001). Ninety-one percent of trainees agreed that the TURP module was useful for their development in urological training.

conclusionOur results demonstrated that it is feasible to develop and implement a focussed module for teaching TURP with significant improvement in learning. Trainee feedback suggests that they were highly satisfied with the teaching provided and models used. This style of training can be implemented for other common surgical procedures.

Indexed as

CurriculumSimulation TrainingClinical CompetenceHumansTime FactorsTransurethral Resection of ProstateUrologySimulationSurgical educationSurgical skillsTransurethral resection of prostate

Identifiers

PMID32040716
OpenAlexW3006352627

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.