ArticleCanadian medical education journal2022
Assessment of laparoscopic skills: comparing the reliability of global rating and entrustability tools.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Medical Training with Mixed Reality and Haptic Feedback Simulator for Acupuncture Needling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based automatic bleeding recognition during liver resection in laparoscopic hepatectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- There is a need for a paradigm shift in laparoscopic surgical training: results of a nationwide survey among teaching hospitals in Switzerland.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- It's hard to get better as a teacher when you're on your own: consider instructional coaching.Canadian medical education journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Competence by design (CBD) residency programs increasingly depend on tools that provide reliable assessments, require minimal rater training, and measure progression through the CBD milestones. To assess intraoperative skills, global rating scales and entrustability ratings are commonly used but may require extensive training. The Competency Continuum (CC) is a CBD framework that may be used as an assessment tool to assess laparoscopic skills. The study aimed to compare the CC to two other assessment tools: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and the Zwisch scale. Methods: Four expert surgeons rated thirty laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. Two raters used the GOALS scale while the remaining two raters used both the Zwisch scale and CC. Each rater received scale-specific training. Descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliabilities (IRR), and Pearson's correlations were calculated for each scale. Results: Significant positive correlations between GOALS and Zwisch (r = 0.75, Conclusion: The CC may be a reliable tool to assess intraoperative laparoscopic skills and provide trainees with formative feedback relevant to the CBD milestones. Further research should collect further validity evidence for the use of the CC as an independent assessment tool.
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.