Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36724423›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2022

Visualising surgical training in O&G following the COVID-19 pandemic - The European view.

R Hablase, R Mallick, F Odejinmi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R Hablase
R Mallick
F Odejinmi
Royal Sussex County Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & Objectives: Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) training programmes that traditionally relied on the hands-on apprenticeship-training model, became crippled with the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Web-based anonymised survey was circulated to trainee members of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) over 8-weeks period commencing June 2021. Results: 213 trainees from 20 countries responded. Trainees from medium Human Development Index (HDI) countries were less represented. 78% (166/213) were in approved training programmes and 81% (174/213) had access to personal PPE. The vaccine uptake was 87% (185/213). 39% (89/213) and 55% (118/213) experienced negative impact on their physical and mental wellbeing with 36% (76/213) COVID-19 related absence. 15% (32/213) were redeployed to areas outside O&G. 25% (53 /213) had negative impact on their obstetric experience compared to 54% (114/213) reported lower gynaecology surgical exposure and 43% (91/213) failed to meet their gynaecology surgical competencies during the pandemic. 64% (137/213) perceived simulation training as an alternative training tool. Conclusion: In the post-pandemic recovery phase, gynaecological societies and national institutes across Europe continue to develop training curricula implementing virtual and hybrid training modules. The aim is to develop a robust blueprint to safeguard the gynaecological surgical training in the future. What is new?: The ongoing impact on the training in the post pandemic era remains to be evaluated. Our pan Europe survey highlights areas that remain affected from trainees' perspective and assesses differences in the healthcare systems across continent. We then discuss the novel initiatives taken to overcome training gaps.

Identifiers

PMID36724423
PMCPMC10364335
OpenAlexW4318817978

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.