Trial reportJournal of robotic surgery2021
Cognitive training for robotic surgery: a chance to optimize surgical training? A pilot study.
Trial report in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring the Role of Cognitive Capacity and Adaptive Learning in Professional Education: A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2025Review
- Cognitive ergonomics and robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- "Role-sharing surgery": a new surgical education system that gives beginner surgeons more chances to operate while ensuring the surgical quality of robotic surgery.Surgery today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid rise of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has necessitated an efficient and standardized training curriculum. Cognitive training (CT) can significantly improve skills, such as attention, working memory and problem solving, and can enhance surgical capacity and support RAS training. This pilot study was carried out between 02/2019 and 04/2019. The participants included 33 student volunteers, randomized into 3 groups: group 1 received training using the da Vinci training simulator, group 2 received computer-based cognitive training, and group 3 was the control group without training. Before (T1) and after-training (T2), performance was measured. Additionally, expert ratings and self-evaluations were collected. Subjective evaluations of performance were supplemented by evaluations based on three scales from the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). In total, 25 probands remained with complete data for further analyses: n = 8 (group 1), n = 7 (group 2) and n = 10 (group 3). There were no significant differences in T1 and T2 among all three groups. The average training gain of group 1 and 2 was 15.87% and 24.6%, respectively, (a restricting condition is the loss of the last training session in group 2). Analyses of semi-structured psychological interviews (SPIs) revealed no significant differences for T1, but in T2, significance occurred at 'self-reflection' for group 2 (F(2.22) = 8.56; p < .005). The efficacy of CT in training highly complex and difficult procedures, such as RAS, is a proven and accepted fact. Further investigation involving higher numbers of training trials (while also being cost effective) should be performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.