ReviewJB & JS open access
Difference in Resident Versus Attending Perspective of Competency and Autonomy During Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perspectives on educating lifelong learning in postgraduate orthopaedic training: an interpretivist qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A noted deficiency in orthopaedic resident education is a lack of intraoperative autonomy; however, no studies exist evaluating this issue. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between resident and attending perception of resident competency and autonomy during arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether increased perceived competency leads to more autonomy.
methodsThis study included 21 orthopaedic residents and 7 attendings from a single residency program. A survey was developed that included the previously validated Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) and implemented novel arthroscopic rotator cuff repair questions concerning 5 key procedural steps determined by attendings. The survey assessed resident and attending perception of percent opportunity given and percent completed of each step and whether the resident could complete the surgery independently. Paired comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Agreement between residents and attendings was calculated using a linear-weighted Gwet's AC
resultsOne hundred forty-two surveys were completed over one academic year. Residents reported a 4-point higher median O-SCORE (34) than attendings (30; p < 0.01; agreement = 0.63). Residents perceived less opportunity compared with attendings, with a median opportunity to complete each step of 54% vs. 70% (p < 0.01; agreement = 0.39). Residents also perceived lower percent completed of the key steps compared with attendings, with medians of 52% vs. 61% (p < 0.01; agreement = 0.37). Resident perceived opportunity increased with higher attending reported O-SCOREs (p < 0.01) and percent completion of the key steps (p < 0.01). No statistically significant increase in perceived opportunity was observed the with post-graduate year (PGY) level (p = 0.35). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated a significant difference in perception between residents and attendings regarding resident competency and autonomy during arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. It also demonstrated that with increasing attending perception of competency, there was an increasing resident perception of autonomy, but there was no statistically significant difference of perceived autonomy based on the PGY-level.
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.