ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2021
Investigation of Objectivity in Scoring and Evaluating Microvascular Anastomosis Simulation Training.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroencephalogram-based Objective Assessment of Surgical Expertise during Microvascular Anastomosis Training.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Observational
- Vision-Capable LLMs in Microsurgery: A Blinded Comparison of Two AI Models with Expert Microsurgeons in the Appraisal of 200 Experimental Anastomoses.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Ethyl Violet as an Alternative Dye to Crystal Violet to Visualize the Vessel Wall during Vascular Anastomosis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increase in minimally invasive surgery has led to a decrease in surgical experience. To date, there is only limited research examining whether skills are evaluated objectively and equally in simulation training, especially in microsurgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze the objectivity and equality of simulation evaluation results conducted in a contest format. A nationwide recruitment process was conducted to select study participants. Participants were recruited from a pool of qualified physicians with less than 10 years of experience. In this study, the simulation procedure consisted of incising a 1 mm thick blood vessel and suturing it with a 10-0 thread using a microscope. Initially, we planned to have the neurosurgical supervisors score the simulation procedure by direct observation. However, due to COVID-19, some study participants were unable to attend. Thus requiring some simulation procedures to be scored by video review. A total of 14 trainees participated in the study. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient among the scorers was 0.99, indicating a strong correlation. There was no statistically significant difference between the scores from the video review and direct observation judgments. There was a statistically significant difference (p <0.001) between the scores for some criteria. For the eight criteria, individual scorers assigned scores in a consistent pattern. However, this pattern differed between scorers indicating that some scorers were more lenient than others. The results indicate that both video review and direct observation methods are highly objective techniques evaluate simulation procedures.
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.