ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2020
Development of a certification examination for orthopedic sports medicine fellows
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What do we know about Objective Structured Clinical Examination in Sport and Exercise Medicine? A scoping review.Canadian medical education journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to develop a multifaceted examination to assess the competence of fellows following completion of a sports medicine fellowship. Methods: Orthopedic sports medicine fellows over 2 academic years were invited to participate in the study. Clinical skills were evaluated with objective structured clinical examinations, multiple-choice question examinations, an in-training evaluation report and a surgical logbook. Fellows’ performance of 3 technical procedures was assessed both intraoperatively and on cadavers: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) and arthroscopic shoulder Bankart repair. Technical procedural skills were assessed using previously validated task-specific checklists and the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) global rating scale. Results: Over 2 years, 12 fellows were assessed. The Cronbach α for the technical assessments was greater than 0.8, and the interrater reliability for the cadaveric assessments was greater than 0.78, indicating satisfactory reliability. When assessed in the operating room, all fellows were determined to have achieved a minimal level of competence in the 3 surgical procedures, with the exception of 1 fellow who was not able achieve competence in ACLR. When their performance on cadaveric specimens was assessed, 2 of 12 (17%) fellows were not able to demonstrate a minimal level of competence in ACLR, 2 of 10 (20%) were not able to demonstrate a minimal level of competence for RCR and 3 of 10 (30%) were not able to demonstrate a minimal level of competence for Bankart repair. Conclusion: There was a disparity between fellows’ performance in the operating room and their performance in the high-fidelity cadaveric setting, suggesting that technical performance in the operating room may not be the most appropriate measure for assessment of fellows’ competence.
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.