ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2021
Verbalization, Categorization, and Evaluation of Fundamental Surgical Skills: An Expert Consensus in Open Head and Neck Surgery.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative analysis of gaze and body movement differences by proficiency in direct and video laryngoscope intubation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development of an electrosurgery-compatible simulation task for quantitatively assessing oral cancer resection skills: initial validity evidence.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Validation of a surgical training model containing indocyanine green for near-infrared fluorescence imaging.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to verbalize fundamental surgical skills required for open head and neck surgery (OHNS), to organize them by categorization, and to establish a consensus among surgeons regarding the importance and difficulty of each skill. Summary Background Data: Improvement of fundamental surgical skills is the core of surgical education; however, surgical skills are not yet organized, and consensus in any surgical field remains uncertain. Methods: Fundamental surgical skills during OHNS were collected from surgical textbooks, real surgeries, and expert interviews. The items were analyzed to calculate the frequency of words and were categorized by 2 expert surgeons. After consensus on the importance and difficulty of each item was established by 15 expert surgeons using a Delphi survey, principal component (PC) analysis was performed to integrate importance and difficulty into a single parameter. Results: Sixty skills were verbalized and categorized into 7 categories: "skin flap elevation (n = 6)," "vessel management (n = 9)," "nerve preservation (n = 8)," "instrument handling (n = 11)," "counter traction (n = 7)," "tissue exposure (n = 9)," and "flow and planning (n = 10)." In the Delphi survey, expert consensus was established after 2 voting rounds (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.80). The "counter traction" and "flow and planning" categories had high PC scores, which indicate priority in surgical education. Conclusion: Fundamental OHNS skills were verbalized, categorized, and evaluated via expert consensus. Assessment of surgeons' skills by the structured items hereby developed will help standardize the quality of OHNS and improve patient outcomes.
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.