ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
The FAST Workstation Shows Construct Validity and Participant Endorsement.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 3D-Printed Home-Based Arthroscopic Simulator Improves Basic Surgical Skills: A Prospective Comparative Multicentre Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Resident Performance on the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) Workstation Does Not Predictably Improve With Postgraduate Year.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Validating low-fidelity arthroscopic simulation in medical students: a feasibility trial.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine in what way the proposed simulation-based intervention (SBI) is an effective intervention for use in basic arthroscopic skills training.
methodsTwenty candidates were recruited and grouped according to experience. Performance metrics included the time to activity completion, errors made, and Global Rating Scale score. Qualitative data were collected using a structured questionnaire.
resultsPerformance on the SBI differed depending on previous arthroscopic training received. Performance on the simulator differed between groups to a statistically significant level regarding time to completion. A difference was also present between participants with no previous training and those with previous training when assessed using the Global Rating Scale. The SBI was deemed acceptable, user-friendly, and realistic. Participants practicing at the expert level believe that such an SBI would be beneficial in developing basic arthroscopic skills.
conclusionsThe results of this study provide evidence that the use of an SBI consisting of a benchtop workstation, laptop viewing platform, 30° arthroscope, and defined performance metrics can detect differences in the level of arthroscopic experience. This format of SBI has been deemed acceptable and useful to the intended user, increasing the feasibility of introducing it into surgical training. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study adds to the existing body of evidence supporting the potential benefits of benchtop SBIs in arthroscopic skills training. Improved performance on such an SBI may be beneficial for the purpose of basic arthroscopic skills training, and we would support the inclusion of this system in surgical training programs such as those developed by the Arthroscopy Association of North America and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery.
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.