Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37830074›Full record

ReviewSurgery open science2023

Which, how, and what? Using digital tools to train surgical skills; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tim M Feenstra, Sebastiaan L van der Storm, Esther Z Barsom, Jaap H Bonjer, Els J M Nieveen van Dijkum, Marlies P Schijven

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgery open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Tim M FeenstraDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sebastiaan L van der StormDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Esther Z BarsomDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jaap H BonjerDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Els J M Nieveen van DijkumDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marlies P SchijvenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital tools like digital box trainers and VR seem promising in delivering safe and tailored practice opportunities outside of the surgical clinic, yet understanding their efficacy and limitations is essential. This study investigated Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were systematically reviewed for randomized trials, evaluating digital skill-training tools based on objective outcomes (skills scores and completion time) in surgical residents. Digital tools effectiveness were compared against controls, wet/dry lab training, and other digital tools. Tool and training factors subgroups were analysed, and studies were assessed on their primary outcomes: technical and/or non-technical. Results: The 33 included studies involved 927 residents and six digital tools; digital box trainers, (immersive) virtual reality (VR) trainers, robot surgery trainers, coaching and feedback, and serious games. Digital tools outperformed controls in skill scores (SMD 1.66 [1.06, 2.25], Conclusion: While the efficacy of digital tools in enhancing technical surgical skills is evident - especially for VR-trainers -, there is a lack of evidence regarding non-technical skills, and need to improve methodological robustness of research on new (digital) tools before they are implemented in curricula. Key message: This study provides critical insight into the increasing presence of digital tools in surgical training, demonstrating their usefulness while identifying current challenges, especially regarding methodological robustness and inattention to non-technical skills.

Indexed as

Digital trainingMeta-analysisResidencySkillsSystematic reviewTraining

Identifiers

PMID37830074
PMCPMC10565595

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.