Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022
Contextual interference for skills development and transfer in laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of contextual interference on transfer in motor learning - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Variable practice is superior to self-directed training for laparoscopic simulator training: a randomized trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Medical simulation: an essential tool for training, diagnosis, and treatment in the 21st century.BMC medical education · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPast education literature has shown benefits for random practice schedules (termed contextual interference) for skills retention and transfer to novel tasks. The purpose of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) training is to develop skills in simulation and transfer to new in vivo intraoperative experiences. The study objective was to assess whether individuals trained over a fixed number of trials in the FLS tasks would outperform untrained controls on an unpracticed previously validated bile duct cannulation task and scoring system and to determine whether random training schedules conferred any relative advantage.
methods44 trainees with no laparoscopic experience were recruited to participate. 35 were randomized to practice the FLS tasks using either a blocked or random training schedule. Nine were randomized to no additional training (controls). Participant performance was measured throughout training to monitor skills acquisition and were then tested on an unpracticed bile duct cannulation simulation task 4 to 6 weeks later. Outcomes included previously validated FLS scores and hand-motion analyses.
resultsAll 44 participants completed the study. Trained individuals in both groups showed significant improvements in all FLS tasks after training. There were no differences between groups in performance on the cannulation task median scores (Blocked: 89.8 [IQR:37.6]; Random: 83.2 [32.3]; Control: 83.6 [19.1]; p = 0.955), number of hand motions (Blocked: 42.5 [IQR:130.3]; Random: 75.3 [111.3]; Control: 63.0 [71.8]; p = 0.912), or distance traveled by participants hands (Blocked: 2.0 m [IQR:5.8]; Random: 3.8 [8.9]; Control: 2.6 [2.5]; p = 0.816). Cannulation task performance had no correlation with total FLS performance, R
conclusionsSkills acquired from conventional FLS tasks did not effectively transfer to a laparoscopic bile duct cannulation task. Neither blocked nor random practice schedules conferred a relative advantage. These findings provide evidence that cannulation is a distinct skill from what is taught and assessed in FLS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34981234What 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.