Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34075509›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2022

Microsurgical suturing assessment scores: a systematic review.

Niveditha M, Ravi Sharma, Ashish Suri

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Education and training in microsurgery: a current global overview.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assisting in Microsurgery: Operative and Technical Considerations.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Niveditha MDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic and Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Ravi SharmaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic and Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Ashish SuriDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cardiothoracic and Neurosciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. surineuro@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0464-0860

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several scoring scales for the assessment of microsurgical skills have been established and validated with the same basic parameters. The study aims to review the existing scales to highlight those parameters, which can be utilized uniformly across all neurosurgical training centers. An online search was conducted and all the surgical scores pertinent to microsurgical suturing were reviewed. The scales were compared to identify parameters, which were important for skill development and assessment in neurosurgical trainees. Seven assessment scales were identified which assessed the trainee's proficiency in microsurgical suturing. The objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) and Northwestern Objective Microanastomosis Assessment Tool (NOMAT) were identified as the most widely used and validated assessment scales. The newer scales University of Western Ontario microsurgical skills acquisition/assessment (UWOMSA) and structured assessment of microsurgery (SAMS) were notable for the division of the skills. The knot strength, suture separation, and suture intervals were the most important parameters in all scales. Each scale has its strength in the assessment of the microsurgical proficiency of neurosurgical trainees. However, a more uniform scale that can be applied as per the level of the neurosurgical trainee is necessary.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyClinical CompetenceHumansMicrosurgeryNeurosurgical ProceduresSuturesMicrosurgeryMicrosuturingNeurosurgerySimulationSkillsTraining

Identifiers

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.