SynthesisBJS open2022
Objective improvement with coronary anastomosis simulation training: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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.
- Construction and Surgical Training of Coronary Anastomosis on a Low-Cost Portable Simulator: Experience in a Peruvian Multicenter Study.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery anastomosis training and assessment are vital for patient safety and for conferring a prognostic benefit. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to analyse the impact of simulation on coronary anastomosis proficiency in terms of time taken and skill score.
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases on 10 October 2020, using the terms 'Coronary anastomosis simulation' or 'vascular anastomosis simulation' and 'anastomosis simulation'. Studies included had objective measurement of scores of before and after simulation. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan, version 5.4 (Cochrane Library).
resultsFrom a pool of 1687 articles, 12 articles evaluating the use of simulation in teaching coronary anastomosis were identified, with objective scores at baseline and after simulation. The 12 papers included 274 subjects. Data on 223 subjects could be extracted for analysis in performing coronary anastomosis in a simulated environment. Eight trials evaluated improvement in time and 12 trials evaluated performance using an objective evaluation score. In comparison with no formal simulation training, simulation was associated with improved skill in a five-point scale (standardized mean difference 1.68 (95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 2.13; P < 0.001)) and time (mean difference 205.9 s (95 per cent c.i. 133.62 to 278.18; P < 0.001)) in trials included in the meta-analysis. Furthermore, novice cardiothoracic surgeons benefited more from simulation as regards time improvement compared with senior cardiothoracic surgeons (293 versus 120 s improvement; P = 0.003). Fidelity of simulator did not have a significant effect on rates of improvement.
conclusionSimulation-based training in coronary anastomosis is associated with improved time efficiency and overall performance in comparison with no intervention. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimum timing of trainees progressing from simulation training to live operating.
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.