Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32876737›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021

Laparoscopic skills training: the effects of viewing mode (2D vs. 3D) on skill acquisition and transfer.

Kirsty L Beattie, Andrew Hill, Mark S Horswill, Philip M Grove, Andrew R L Stevenson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Minimal Access Tricuspid Valve Surgery.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  10. Safety of Three-Dimensional versus Two-Dimensional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Kirsty L BeattieSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. kirsty.beattie@uq.net.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2141-6235
Andrew HillSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.
Mark S HorswillSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.
Philip M GroveSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia.
Andrew R L StevensonSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) visual displays have been suggested to aid laparoscopic skills training by providing the depth cues not present in traditional two-dimensional (2D) displays. However, few studies have robustly investigated the impact of viewing mode (2D vs. 3D) on learning outcomes. PURPOSE: To examine how viewing mode (2D vs. 3D) impacts the acquisition and transferability of basic laparoscopic skills by comparing performance between transfer and control groups on a complete proficiency-based training program.

methodA counterbalanced between-subjects design was employed. Each participant was randomly allocated to one of four groups, comprising two transfer groups (trained in one viewing mode and tested in the alternate mode: the 2D → 3D and 3D → 2D groups) and two control groups (trained and tested in one viewing mode: the 2D → 2D and 3D → 3D groups). Participants completed proficiency-based training in six laparoscopic training tasks. Testing included two further repetitions of all tasks under test conditions. Objective performance measures included the total number of repetitions to reach proficiency, and total performance scores (i.e. time + error penalties across all repetitions) in training and testing.

resultsThe groups trained in 3D demonstrated superior training performance (i.e. less time + errors) and took fewer repetitions to reach proficiency than the groups trained in 2D. The groups tested in 3D also demonstrated superior test performance compared to those tested in 2D. However, training mode did not yield significant test differences between the groups tested in 2D (i.e. 2D → 2D vs. 3D → 2D), or between the groups tested in 3D (i.e. 3D → 3D vs. 2D → 3D).

conclusionNovices demonstrate superior performance in laparoscopic skills training using a 3D viewing mode compared to 2D. However, this does not necessarily translate to superior performance in subsequent testing or enhanced learning overall. Rather, test performance appears to be dictated by the viewing mode used during testing, not that of prior training.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySimulation TrainingClinical CompetenceHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalLearning Curve2D laparoscopy3D laparoscopyLearningNovicesSurgical skillsTraining

Identifiers

PMID32876737
PMCPMC8263422

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.