ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
Laypersons versus experienced surgeons in assessing simulated robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in World journal of urology, 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFeedback is important for surgical trainees but it can be biased and time-consuming. We examined crowd-sourced assessment as an alternative to experienced surgeons' assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
methodsWe used video recordings (n = 45) of three RARP modules on the RobotiX, Simbionix simulator from a previous study in a blinded comparative assessment study. A group of crowd workers (CWs) and two experienced RARP surgeons (ESs) evaluated all videos with the modified Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Surgery (mGEARS).
resultsOne hundred forty-nine CWs performed 1490 video ratings. Internal consistency reliability was high (0.94). Inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were low for CWs (0.29 and 0.39) and moderate for ESs (0.61 and 0.68). In an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, CWs could not discriminate between the skill level of the surgeons (p = 0.03-0.89), whereas ES could (p = 0.034).
conclusionWe found very low agreement between the assessments of CWs and ESs when they assessed robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. As opposed to ESs, CWs could not discriminate between surgical experience using the mGEARS ratings or when asked if they wanted the surgeons to perform their robotic surgery.
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.