Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33604749›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Assessing competence in cochlear implant surgery using the newly developed Cochlear Implant Surgery Assessment Tool.

Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Lars Konge, Søren Foghsgaard, Peter Trier Mikkelsen, Mads Sølvsten Sørensen, Per Cayé-Thomasen, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martin FrendøDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. martin.frendoe-soerensen.01@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4301-347X
Andreas FrithioffDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Lars KongeThe Simulation Centre, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren FoghsgaardDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Peter Trier MikkelsenVisual Computing Lab, The Alexandra Institute, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mads Sølvsten SørensenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Per Cayé-ThomasenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Steven Arild Wuyts AndersenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Rigshospitalet · DKAlexandra Institute (Denmark) · DKCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and gather validity evidence for a novel tool for assessment of cochlear implant (CI) surgery, including virtual reality CI surgery training.

methodsProspective study gathering validity evidence according to Messick's framework. Four experts developed the CI Surgery Assessment Tool (CISAT). A total of 35 true novices (medical students), trained novices (residents) and CI surgeons performed two CI-procedures each in the Visible Ear Simulator, which were rated by three blinded experts. Classical test theory and generalizability theory were used for reliability analysis.

resultsThe CISAT significantly discriminated between the three groups (p < 0.001). The generalizability coefficient was 0.76 and most of the score variance (53.3%) was attributable to the participant and only 6.8% to the raters. When exploring a standard setting for CI surgery, the contrasting groups method suggested a pass/fail score of 36.0 points (out of 55), but since the trained novices performed above this, we propose using the mean CI surgeon performance score (45.3 points).

conclusionValidity evidence for simulation-based assessment of CI performance supports the CISAT. Together with the standard setting, the CISAT might be used to monitor progress in competency-based training of CI surgery and to determine when the trainee can advance to further training.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsVirtual RealityClinical CompetenceHumansProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsCochlear implantsMedical educationResident educationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33604749
OpenAlexW3132408809

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.