Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36374304›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023

Review of the validity of DOPS as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees.

M Rela, T Price

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

2 authors.

M RelaUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK.
T PriceUniversity of Plymouth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgical trainees at all stages are mandated to use workplace-based assessments (WBAs) to gain feedback from their trainers. Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) is a tool to assess hands-on surgical skills. This review of the literature seeks to ascertain how valid DOPS are as an assessment tool for the procedural skills of surgical trainees according to the American Psychology Association (APA) validity framework.

methodsRelevant literature was identified through a structured search of Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, with further papers included on citation review. Following this, papers meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the final review specifying those investigating WBAs including DOPS, assessments in practice rather than simulation and specifically for postgraduate surgical trainees.

findingsSixteen papers were included in the final analysis. Extracted data from the returned papers were assessed for evidence of validity in each of the five domains on the APA framework: validity based on consequence, response process, reliability, content and relationship to other variables. There are studies that show good parameters for reliability and validity for specific DOPS used in endoscopy and otolaryngology. However, there is confusion over the purpose of DOPS among trainers and trainees as to whether they should be used formatively or summatively. Recent changes to the surgical curriculum have sought to address this, and further work into the impact of this needs to be done.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceOtolaryngologyEducational MeasurementHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical educationFeedbackSurgical trainingValidityWorkplace-based assessments

Identifiers

PMID36374304
PMCPMC10471438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.