Observational studyBMJ open2023
Comparing proficiency of obstetrics and gynaecology trainees with general surgery trainees using simulated laparoscopic tasks in Health Education England, North-West: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05116332 (Comparing the Variation in Laparoscopic Skills Acquisition in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and General Surgical Trainees.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Comparing the Variation in Laparoscopic Skills Acquisition in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and General Surgical Trainees. (LAGGS Study)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Trainees Face Higher Musculoskeletal Demands than General Surgery Trainees in Simulated Laparoscopic Tasks-An Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraining programmes for obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) and general surgery (GS) vary significantly, but both require proficiency in laparoscopic skills. We sought to determine performance in each specialty.
designProspective, observational study.
settingHealth Education England North-West, UK.
participants47 surgical trainees (24 O&G and 23 GS) were subdivided into four groups: 11 junior O&G, 13 senior O&G, 11 junior GS and 12 senior GS trainees.
objectivesTrainees were tested on four simulated laparoscopic tasks: laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN), hand-eye coordination (HEC), bimanual coordination (BMC) and suturing with intracorporeal knot tying (suturing).
resultsO&G trainees completed LCN (p<0.001), HEC (p<0.001) and BMC (p<0.001) significantly slower than GS trainees. Furthermore, O&G found fewer number of targets in LCN (p=0.001) and dropped a greater number of pins than the GS trainees in BMC (p=0.04). In all three tasks, there were significant differences between O&G and GS trainees but no difference between the junior and senior groups within each specialty. Performance in suturing also varied by specialty; senior O&G trainees scored significantly lower than senior GS trainees (O&G 11.4±4.4 vs GS 16.8±2.1, p=0.03). Whilst suturing scores improved with seniority among O&G trainees, there was no difference between the junior and senior GS trainees (senior O&G 11.4±4.4 vs junior O&G 3.6±2.1, p=0.004). DISCUSSION: GS trainees performed better than O&G trainees in core laparoscopic skills, and the structure of O&G training may require modification. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05116332).
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.