ArticleUrology annals
Evaluating the construct validity of UroLift simulator through a virtual learning experience of urology residents.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-based training in minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST): current evidence and future directions for artificial intelligence integration-a systematic review by EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic simulators in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical training: a scoping review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Review
- Comparing the clinical outcomes and learning curves of prostatic urethral lift performed by experienced versus naïve urologists.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Simulations are useful and can mirror the situations needed for skills development. They can have significant impacts on patient safety and help physicians gain proficiency in complex procedures with a short learning curve. They have been validated as an assessment tool and can utilize innovative machines or platforms. Here, we evaluate the construct validity and the performance of residents with different levels using UroLift (NeoTract) simulation. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Two groups of trainees were distributed according to their training level: junior residents and senior residents. Each had to finish three cases of varying difficulties. The data were first tested with the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Construct validity used an independent sample Results: Significant differences were seen in performance among junior residents and senior residents in the following skills: proximal centering, mucosal abrasion, and implants in proximal zones. However, insignificant results were seen for number of deployments, successful deployments, lateral suture centering, and implants in the distal zones. Conclusion: UroLift simulations are useful for training as a practicing tool. Nevertheless, objective performance evaluation using UroLift simulations requires further steps and frameworks as a source of validity before further result interpretation.
Indexed as
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.