Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32304357›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2020

Simulation of advanced cataract surgery - validation of a newly developed test.

Mads Forslund Jacobsen, Lars Konge, Morten la Cour, Lars Holm, Hadi Kjaerbo, Birgitte Moldow, George M Saleh, Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mads Forslund JacobsenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-8191
Lars KongeCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Centre for HR, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Morten la CourDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars HolmDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hadi KjaerboDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Birgitte MoldowDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
George M SalehNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Ann Sofia Skou ThomsenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet - Glostrup, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Glostrup Hospital · DKCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation · DKMoorfields Eye Hospital · GB

Funding

Velux Fonden 16627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and investigate an Eyesi simulator-based test for the more experienced cataract surgeon for evidence of validity.

methodsThe study was a prospective interventional cohort study and carried out at the Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation. The Eyesi Simulator was used for the test which was developed by three expert cataract surgeons. Ten cataract surgeons (>250 surgeries performed) and ten ophthalmic residents performed two repetitions of the test. The test consisted of four modules: Iris Expansion Ring insertion - level 1, Iris Expansion Ring extraction - level 2, Capsulorhexis - level 3 and Anterior Vitrectomy - level 6.

resultsInternal consistency reliability showed Cronbach's alpha of 0.63. Test-retest reliabilities were significant for Iris Expansion Ring extraction - level 2 (p = 0.012) and Capsulorhexis - level 3 (p = 0.018). Differences between the two groups were only significant in both repetitions for the Iris Expansion Ring extraction - level 2 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.041, respectively). Furthermore, we found a statistically significant difference between the mean module scores for novices and the more experienced surgeons for Iris Expansion Ring insertion - level 1 (p = 0.021) and Capsulorhexis - level 3 (p = 0.019) in the first repetition.

conclusionThe investigated modules show evidence of validity within several aspects of Messick's framework. However, the evidence is not strong enough to apply the test for certification purposes of cataract surgeons, but the modules may still be relevant in the training of advanced cataract surgical procedures.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceComputer SimulationAdultCataract ExtractionEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmologyProspective StudiesSurgery, Computer-Assistedcataract surgeryEyesimedical educationsimulationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID32304357
PMCPMC7687069
OpenAlexW3017132292

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.