ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2023
Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and Methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new?: We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.
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.