ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Assessing VATS competence based on simulated lobectomies of all five lung lobes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding surgical competence: surgical gesture analysis can determine competence in simulated VATS lobectomy, a validation study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Simulation-based assessment of robotic cardiac surgery skills: An international multicenter, cross-specialty trial.JTCVS open · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the number of procedures and expert raters necessary to provide a reliable assessment of competence in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy.
methodsThree randomly selected VATS lobectomies were performed on a virtual reality simulator by participants with varying experience in VATS. Video recordings of the procedures were independently rated by three blinded VATS experts using a modified VATS lobectomy assessment tool (VATSAT). The unitary framework of validity was used to describe validity evidence, and generalizability theory was used to explore the reliability of different assessment options.
resultsForty-one participants (22 novices, 10 intermediates, and 9 experienced) performed a total of 123 lobectomies. Internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were 0.94, 0.85, and 0.90, respectively. Generalizability theory found that a minimum of two procedures and four raters or three procedures and three raters were needed to ensure the overall reliability of 0.8. ANOVA showed significant differences in test scores between the three groups (P < 0.001). A pass/fail level of 19 out of 25 points was established using the contrasting groups' standard setting method, leaving one false positive (one novice passed) and zero false negatives (all experienced passed).
conclusionWe demonstrated validity evidence for a VR simulator test with different lung lobes, and a credible pass/fail level was identified. Our results can be used to implement a standardized mastery learning training program for trainees in VATS lobectomies that ensures that everyone reaches basic competency before performing supervised operations on patients.
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.