Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32804266›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021

The effect of verbal feedback, video feedback, and self-assessment on laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing skills in novices: a randomized trial.

Jonathan Halim, Joshua Jelley, Ningning Zhang, Marcus Ornstein, Bijendra Patel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Current Landscape of Urological Surgical Training: A Needs Assessment Survey in Japan.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Exploring the use of metacognitive monitoring cues following a diagram completion intervention.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Jonathan HalimBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK. jonat17455@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0204-6315
Joshua JelleyBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.
Ningning ZhangBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.
Marcus OrnsteinBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.
Bijendra PatelBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic skill acquisition involves a steep learning curve and laparoscopic suturing is an exceptionally challenging task. By improving the way feedback is given, trainees can learn these skills more effectively. This study aims to establish the most effective form of structured feedback on laparoscopic suturing skill acquisition in novices, by comparing the effects of expert verbal feedback, video review with expert feedback (video feedback), and video review with self-assessment.

methodsA prospective randomized blinded trial comparing verbal feedback, video feedback, and self-assessment. Novices in laparoscopic surgery were tasked with performing laparoscopic suturing with intracorporeal knot tying. Time was given for practice, and pre- and post-feedback assessments were undertaken. Suturing performance was measured using a task-specific checklist and global ratings. A post-study questionnaire was used to measure participant-perceived confidence, knowledge, and experience levels.

resultsFifty-one participants were randomized and allocated equally into the three groups. Performance in all three groups improved significantly from baseline. Video feedback had the largest improvement margin with checklist and global score improvements of 17.1% (± 9.9%) and 14.7% (± 9.3%), respectively. Performance improvements between groups were statistically significant in the global components (p = 0.004) but not the checklist components (p = 0.186). Global score improvement was significantly better in the video feedback group but was statistically insignificant between the self-assessment and verbal feedback groups. Questionnaire responses demonstrated positive results in confidence, knowledge, and experience levels, across all three study groups, with no differences between the groups (p > 0.05).

conclusionStructured video feedback facilitates reflection and self-directed learning, which improves the ability to develop proficiency in surgical skills. Combining both self-assessment and video feedback may be beneficial over verbal feedback alone due to the advantages of video review. These techniques should therefore be considered for implementation into surgical education curricula.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySelf-AssessmentClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansLearning CurveProspective StudiesSuture TechniquesVideo RecordingEducationMinimal access trainingSelf-assessmentSimulationVideo feedback

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.