SynthesisAnnals of medicine2022
The frequency of assessment tools in arthroscopic training: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 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.
- Validation of a modular low-fidelity training model for biportal endoscopic spine surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- The number of arthroscopies performed by trainees does not deduce the level of their arthroscopic proficiency.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple assessment tools are used in arthroscopic training and play an important role in feedback. However, it is not fully recognized as to the standard way to apply these tools. Our study aimed to investigate the use of assessment tools in arthroscopic training and determine whether there is an optimal way to apply various assessment tools in arthroscopic training.
methodsA search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases for articles published in English from January 2000 to July 2021. Eligible for inclusion were primary research articles related to using assessment tools for the evaluation of arthroscopic skills and training environments. Studies that focussed only on therapeutic cases, did not report outcome measures of technical skills, or did not mention arthroscopic skills training were excluded.
resultsA total of 28 studies were included for review. Multiple assessment tools were used in arthroscopic training. The most common objective metric was completion time, reported in 21 studies. Technical parameters based on simulator or external equipment, such as instrument path length, hand movement, visual parameters and injury, were also widely used. Subjective assessment tools included checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Among these, the most commonly used GRS was the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET). Most of the studies combined objective metrics and subjective assessment scales in the evaluation of arthroscopic skill training.
conclusionsOverall, both subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training, but there are still differences in the frequency of application in different contexts. Despite this, combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies. Key messagesBoth subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training.Combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment.
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.