ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2020
Evaluation of the laparoscopic component of GESEA Programme in two different groups: Obstetrics and Gynaecology Residents versus Participants in the Annual GESEA Diploma Course in Clermont Ferrand, France.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training4all project - from an advanced minimally invasive surgery course to a national training program.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Hysteroscopy: where did we start, and where are we now? The compelling story of what many considered the "Cinderella" of gynecological endoscopy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Visualising surgical training in O&G following the COVID-19 pandemic - The European view.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
- The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructured laparoscopic training courses are important in surgical education. Different programmes have been proposed, but there is currently no evidence available comparing the performance of specialists versus residents in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at these courses.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of the laparoscopic component of Gynaecological Endoscopic Surgical Education and Assessment (GESEA) Training and Certification courses in two different populations. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective cohort study. Two groups were analysed - participants of the Residents' Courses and participants of the Annual Francophone GESEA Diploma Course. Both groups were evaluated using the GESEA Level 1 laparoscopic standardised exercises and carried out in the International Center of Endoscopic Surgery (CICE), Clermont Ferrand, France in 2019.
results57 French residents and 69 participants of the Annual GESEA Diploma were evaluated. The average age of participants in the Residents' Course was lower than those in the Annual Diploma Course (28.4±1.6 versus 35.2±8.0 years, p<0.001). Residents had higher previous experience in laparoscopic surgery (42% vs 36%, p< 0.001), in animal model surgery and in laparoscopic training box (67% vs 36% and 93% vs 67% respectively, p<0.001). Notable improvement was noted in both groups in the camera navigation exercise; first attempt 105±19 vs 117±9 seconds and final attempt 81±15 and 103±20 seconds respectively (p<0.001).
conclusionsBoth groups improved significantly in most of the tests evaluated. French residents had better results in all evaluations, except in one aspect of the suture exercise (maintaining optimal results in performing the knot). After excluding the residents who attended the Annual Diploma Course, all the differences between both groups were statistically more significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32832921PMC7431196What 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.