Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33851882›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2021

The role of simulation in training breast surgeons: a systematic review.

Hkn Kankam, L Lenti, M S Razai, Gjm Hourston, M Khatib

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Hkn KankamColchester Hospital, Essex, UK.
L LentiSt George's University of London Medical School, London, UK.
M S RazaiPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Gjm HourstonJames Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth, UK.
M KhatibSt Andrew's Centre for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs surgical education has evolved, most curricula have favoured a competency-based approach over traditional apprenticeship models. Surgical simulation can be a useful aide in the training of both oncological and reconstructive breast surgery trainees. This review investigates the extent to which simulation of breast surgery procedures has been validated as a training tool.

methodsA comprehensive literature search for studies evaluating the objective validity of breast surgery simulators was performed, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases. Studies assessing construct, concurrent or predictive validity were included, as well as those demonstrating skill acquisition.

findingsThe initial literature search returned 1,625 hits, with only five articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Simulators were designed to train procedures such as breast augmentation, lesion biopsy and excision. Of these, breast biopsy was the most simulated procedure (three studies). Two studies evaluated animal models, two evaluated synthetic models and one study assessed both a synthetic and animal model. Construct validity was confirmed in two studies, concurrent validity in one study and a learning curve demonstrated in another study. No association between experience and performance was seen in the remaining study. The quality of the evidence presented in each article was low due to numerous limitations. Despite the abundance of breast surgery simulators created for trainees, few have been objectively validated and they only cover a narrow range of breast procedures. Although early results are promising, further studies are required before routine use of simulators is considered in breast surgery curricula.

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingAnimalsBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammaplastyMastectomySurgeonsSurgical Procedures, OperativeBreast surgeryEducationTrainingValidation

Identifiers

PMID33851882
PMCPMC10335253

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.