Observational studyInternational journal of impotence research2022
Development and content validation of a competency-based assessment tool for penile prosthesis surgery.
Observational study in International journal of impotence research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify potential hazards for the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgical procedure and from this develop and content validate an IPP intraoperative competency-based assessment tool. A multi-institutional longitudinal prospective observational study was conducted over a 6-month period. Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) methodology was used to prospectively risk assess the IPP procedure using a collaborative multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. International content validation of the developed tool was then undertaken via face-to-face meetings and WebEx seminars. A total of 22 h of observation led to the construction of a detailed process map consisting of 11 stages and 49 sub-stages. HFMEA identified 50 failure modes and 45 failure mode effects, nine failure modes were excluded after analysis leaving 41 key failure modes included in the checklist. The high-risk steps identified were related to corporal dilatation, incorrect sizing of the prosthesis cylinders and incorrect localisation of the superficial inguinal ring for blind reservoir placement. The final content validated IPP assessment tool (PPAT) consisted of 13 processes and 27 sub-processes. We concluded that HFMEA methodology successfully allowed for the identification of key steps within the IPP procedure from which the PPAT was developed. Formal international content validation confirmed that all key procedural steps were included in the PPAT and that completion of all steps would indicate trainee competency in the procedure. Further validation is required before the tool can be used to assess learning curves for the IPP procedure.
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.