Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32944808›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021

Simulation for skills training in neurosurgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and analysis of progressive scholarly acceptance.

Joseph Davids, Susruta Manivannan, Ara Darzi, Stamatia Giannarou, Hutan Ashrafian, Hani J Marcus

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 4D Neurosurgery-Learning Brain Surgery from an Avatar.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

6 authors.

Joseph DavidsDepartment of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, Holborn, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. jdavids@ic.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9257-6722
Susruta ManivannanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Southampton University NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5905-2073
Ara DarziImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7989
Stamatia GiannarouImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8745-1343
Hutan AshrafianImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Praed St, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1668-0672
Hani J MarcusDepartment of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, Holborn, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8000-392X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At a time of significant global unrest and uncertainty surrounding how the delivery of clinical training will unfold over the coming years, we offer a systematic review, meta-analysis, and bibliometric analysis of global studies showing the crucial role simulation will play in training. Our aim was to determine the types of simulators in use, their effectiveness in improving clinical skills, and whether we have reached a point of global acceptance. A PRISMA-guided global systematic review of the neurosurgical simulators available, a meta-analysis of their effectiveness, and an extended analysis of their progressive scholarly acceptance on studies meeting our inclusion criteria of simulation in neurosurgical education were performed. Improvement in procedural knowledge and technical skills was evaluated. Of the identified 7405 studies, 56 studies met the inclusion criteria, collectively reporting 50 simulator types ranging from cadaveric, low-fidelity, and part-task to virtual reality (VR) simulators. In all, 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 7 randomised controlled trials. A random effects, ratio of means effects measure quantified statistically significant improvement in procedural knowledge by 50.2% (ES 0.502; CI 0.355; 0.649, p < 0.001), technical skill including accuracy by 32.5% (ES 0.325; CI - 0.482; - 0.167, p < 0.001), and speed by 25% (ES - 0.25, CI - 0.399; - 0.107, p < 0.001). The initial number of VR studies (n = 91) was approximately double the number of refining studies (n = 45) indicating it is yet to reach progressive scholarly acceptance. There is strong evidence for a beneficial impact of adopting simulation in the improvement of procedural knowledge and technical skill. We show a growing trend towards the adoption of neurosurgical simulators, although we have not fully gained progressive scholarly acceptance for VR-based simulation technologies in neurosurgical education.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryVirtual RealityClinical CompetenceComputer SimulationHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresAugmented realityMeta-analysisNeurosurgeryProgressive scholarly acceptanceSimulationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID32944808
PMCPMC8338820

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.