Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34040056›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2021

Effectiveness of simulation-based training for manual small incision cataract surgery among novice surgeons: a randomized controlled trial.

Akshay Gopinathan Nair, Chetan Ahiwalay, Ashish E Bacchav, Tejas Sheth, Van Charles Lansingh, S Swaroop Vedula, Venudhar Bhatt, Jagadesh C Reddy, Pravin K Vadavalli, Smita Praveen and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

12 authors.

Akshay Gopinathan Nair *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India. akshay@helpmesee.org.
Chetan Ahiwalay *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India.
Ashish E Bacchav *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India.
Tejas Sheth *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India.
Van Charles Lansingh *HelpMeSee Inc., New York, USA.
S Swaroop Vedula *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India.
Venudhar Bhatt *HelpMeSee Inc., 703 A, Supreme Business Park, Powai, Hiranandani, Mumbai, 400 076, India.
Jagadesh C Reddy *L V Prasad Eye Institute, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India.
Pravin K Vadavalli *L V Prasad Eye Institute, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India.
Smita Praveen *Sankara Nethralaya, Nungambakkam, Chennai, India.
Nikhilesh Anil Wairagade *Mahatme Eye Bank and Eye Hospital, Somalwada, Nagpur, India.
Jeff Pettey *John A. Moran Eye Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was designed to determine the effect of a novel simulation-based training curriculum for scleral tunnel construction in manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) compared with traditional training. In this multicenter, investigator-masked, randomized clinical trial, resident surgeons within 3 months of matriculation with minimal or no prior experience with MSICS were assigned either to simulation-based training, the Experimental Group (EG), or to conventional training, the Control Group (CG). EG residents were trained to perform scleral tunnel construction using a simulation-based curriculum (HelpMeSee Eye Surgery Simulator), while residents in the CG followed institution-specific curriculum before progressing to live surgery. Surgical videos of the first 20 attempts at tunnel construction were reviewed by masked video raters. The primary outcome was the total number of any of 9 pre-specified errors. On average, the total number of errors was 9.25 (95% CI 0-18.95) in the EG and 17.56 (95% CI 6.63-28.49) in the CG (P = 0.05); the number of major errors was 4.86 (95% CI 0.13-9.59) in the EG and 10.09 (95% CI 4.76-15.41) in the CG (P = 0.02); and the number of minor errors was 4.39 (95% CI 0-9.75) in the EG and 7.47 (95% CI 1.43-13.51) in the CG (P = 0.16). These results support that novice surgeons trained using the novel simulation-based curriculum performed fewer errors in their first 20 attempts at tunnel construction compared to those trained with a conventional curriculum.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdultCataract ExtractionCurriculumEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLearning CurveMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareScleraSimulation TrainingVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID34040056
PMCPMC8155014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.