ArticleBMC medical education2021
Tools for measuring technical skills during gynaecologic surgery: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic-assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Simulation-Based Gynecologic Endoscopy Training: A Systematic Review Comparing Objective Technical Skill Performance.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Overview of surgical training and assessment of surgical skills: a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- The impact of short-course total neoadjuvant therapy, long-course chemoradiotherapy, and upfront surgery on the technical difficulty of total mesorectal excision: an observational study with an intraoperative perspective.Annals of coloproctology · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardised assessment is key to structured surgical training. Currently, there is no consensus on which surgical assessment tool to use in live gynaecologic surgery. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools measuring technical skills in gynaecologic surgery and evaluate the measurement characteristics of each tool.
methodWe utilized the scoping review methodology and searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were studies that analysed assessment tools in live gynaecologic surgery. Kane's validity argument was applied to evaluate the assessment tools in the included studies.
resultsEight studies out of the 544 identified fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The assessment tools were categorised as global rating scales, global and procedure rating scales combined, procedure-specific rating scales or as a non-procedure-specific error assessment tool.
conclusionThis scoping review presents the current different tools for observational assessment of technical skills in intraoperative, gynaecologic surgery. This scoping review can serve as a guide for surgical educators who want to apply a scale or a specific tool in surgical assessment.
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.