ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
A new basic thoracoscopic surgical skill training and assessment system using automatic scoring techniques.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factor analysis of conversion in laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe report a new thoracoscopic surgical skill training and assessment system with automatic scoring techniques, the Huaxi Intelligent Thoracoscopic Skill Training and Assessment (HITSTA) system. We also evaluated the discriminative ability of this system compared to our conventional scoring method at our institution.
methodsWe retrospectively collected training data of thoracic board-certified thoracic surgeons at West China Hospital, Sichuan University from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019. Surgeons were assessed by HITSTA system and human examiners simultaneously. Total scores were summed from 3 tasks (grasping with delivery, pattern cutting, and suture with knot). Bland-Altman analysis was used to test agreement of scores made by HITSTA system (automatic scoring) and human examiners (manual scoring). Differentiation ability was also compared between the two scoring methods.
resultsThirty-nine surgeons were recruited. Scores made by HITSTA system and human examiners were not consistent. For suture with knot, automatic scoring method could detect the score differences between different training status (trained: 26.92 ± 12.04, untrained: 19.85 ± 11.12; p = 0.026) and training duration (< 10 h: 20.67 ± 15.23, ≥ 10 h: 31.92 ± 5.56; p = 0.003). For total scores, automatic scoring approach could discriminate between different training status (trained: 71.90 ± 12.63; untrained: 61.41 ± 13.87; p = 0.016) and training duration (< 10 h: 65.23 ± 15.31; ≥ 10 h 77.23 ± 6.94; p = 0.046).
conclusionHITSTA system could discriminate the different levels of thoracoscopic surgical skills better than the traditional manual scoring method. Larger prospective studies are warranted to validate the differentiation ability of HITSTA system.
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.