Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36074555›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Christin Hoffmann, Matthew Kobetic, Natasha Alford, Natalie Blencowe, Jozel Ramirez, Rhiannon Macefield, Jane M Blazeby, Kerry N L Avery, Shelley Potter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christin HoffmannNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6293-3813
Matthew KobeticNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-4864
Natasha AlfordNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3985-2203
Natalie BlencoweNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6111-2175
Jozel RamirezNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2522-3721
Rhiannon MacefieldNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6606-5427
Jane M BlazebyNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3354-3330
Kerry N L AveryNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5477-2418
Shelley PotterNational Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6977-312X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical innovation can lead to important improvements in patient outcomes. Currently, information and knowledge about novel procedures and devices are disseminated informally and in an unstandardized way (eg, through social media). This can lead to ineffective and inefficient knowledge sharing among surgeons, which can result in the harmful repetition of mistakes and delay in the uptake of promising innovation. Improvements are needed in the way that learning in surgical innovation is shared through the development of novel, real-time methods, informed by a contemporary and comprehensive investigation of existing methods.

objectiveThe aim of this scoping review is to explore the application of existing digital methods for training/education and feedback to surgeons in the context of performing invasive surgical procedures. This work will (1) summarize existing methods for shared learning in surgery and how they are characterized and operationalized, (2) examine the impact of their application, and (3) explore their benefits and barriers to implementation. The findings of this scoping review will inform the development of novel, real-time methods to optimize shared learning in surgical innovation.

methodsThis study will adhere to the recommended guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. A total of 6 different searches will be conducted within multiple sources (2 electronic databases, journals, social media, gray literature, commercial websites, and snowball searches) to comprehensively identify relevant articles and data. Searches will be limited to articles published in the English language within the last 5 years. Wherever possible, a 2-stage study selection process will be followed whereby the eligibility of articles will be assessed through the title, abstract, and full-text screening independently by 2 reviewers. Inclusion criteria will be articles providing data on (1) fully qualified theater staff involved in performing invasive procedures, (2) one or more methods for shared learning (ie, digital means for training/education and feedback), and (3) qualitative or quantitative evaluations of this method. Data will be extracted (10% double data extraction by an independent reviewer) into a piloted proforma and analyzed using descriptive statistics, narrative summaries, and principles of thematic analysis.

resultsThe study commenced in October 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2023. To date, systematic searches were applied to 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) and returned a total of 10,093 records. The results of this scoping review will be published as open access in a peer-reviewed journal.

conclusionsThis scoping review of methods for shared learning in surgery is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive and up-to-date investigation that maps current information on this topic. Ultimately, efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge of novel procedures and devices has the potential to optimize the evaluation of early-phase surgical research and reduce harmful innovation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37544.

Indexed as

digitaldigital healthdigital methoddigital tooleducationeHealthfeedbackinnovationlearningmedical educationoperativeproceduresreviewreview methodologyscoping reviewshared learningsurgeonsurgerysurgicaltraining

Identifiers

PMID36074555
PMCPMC9501681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.