Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36806319›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Multiple metrics assessment method for a reliable evaluation of corneal suturing skills.

Lea Dormegny, Nicole Neumann, Anne Lejay, Arnaud Sauer, David Gaucher, François Proust, Nabil Chakfe, Tristan Bourcier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lea DormegnyGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France. leadormegny@hotmail.fr.
Nicole NeumannGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Anne LejayGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Arnaud SauerGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
David GaucherGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
François ProustGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Nabil ChakfeGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Tristan BourcierGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Université de Strasbourg · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of a multiple metrics assessment method to differentiate between surgeons of differing experience while performing a corneal suturing task. Volunteer ophthalmologists were assigned to three groups (senior [SG], junior [JG] and novice [NG]) according to their experience in corneal suturing. All participants performed three sessions of corneal wound closure by three stitches. Suturing and participant posture were recorded with cameras, and assessed by two blind assessors for stitch quality (using Zhang score) and ergonomics (using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment [RULA] score). Task duration was recorded. Objective analyses of stitches geometry and instrument position were carried out. We included 24 participants: 5 in the SG, 8 in the JG and 11 in the NG. Stitch quality was significantly better and time to perform the procedure significantly lower in more experienced groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). SG participants better respected regular distance and parallelism between stitches compared to others (p = 0.01). Instrument position was similar between groups, although SG participants minimized their back-and-forth movements compared to NG participants. Ergonomics assessment was similar. Multiple metrics assessment efficiently determined how to differentiate between novices and experienced surgeons on corneal suturing skills, providing hints for future training studies.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCorneal InjuriesCorneaErgonomicsHumansNeurosurgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID36806319
PMCPMC9941077
OpenAlexW4321373857

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.