ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2023
Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.
methodsThe validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.
resultsTwenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.
conclusionWe established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.
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.