ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
A Modular Cataract Surgery Training Model Incorporating Human Factors and a Pedagogical Theory.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Four learning phases in cataract surgery revealed by complication rates among novice surgeons at a Japanese teaching center.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synopsis: High volume cataract lists are cost-effective, reduce waiting times, and facilitate surgical teaching. We propose a stepwise training model that incorporates human factor principles and a reflective pedagogical approach, which has not been documented previously. Background/Aims: Surgical training in ophthalmology is effective when a modular approach is utilised. High volume lists further enhance training by increasing exposure to a newer way of learning and working. We evaluated the efficiency and safety of trainee-assisted cataract surgery across a single NHS eye unit and an independent sector (IS) provider. Methods: We examined results from audits of surgical efficiency and safety in trainee-assisted high-volume lists, including a single-centre comparative evaluation of consultant-only and trainee lists. The quantitative and qualitative information gained from these projects helped us to implement a modular, structured training programme that utilises a reflective cycle of pedagogy, suitable for any grade of trainee. Results: Our projects included an audit following cataract surgery performed by a surgical trainee over a 5-month period, which showed excellent post-op refractive results and no cases of intra-operative and post-operative complications. A single-centre observational study demonstrated comparable surgical throughput and safety results for trainee and solo consultant high volume lists. Systemic and ocular complication rates were reported to be similar for low and medium risk cataract surgery among trainee supervised IS and NHS lists. Conclusion: Cataract surgery outcomes and patient feedback support the effectiveness of the surgical training model. Combining Gibbs' reflective cycle of critical reflection with the International Council of Ophthalmology's principles helped us to develop the QM Model of modular teaching for cataract surgery, which we believe is suitable for utilisation in all surgical centres in the NHS and IS settings, for both low volume and high-volume surgical lists regardless of trainee experience.
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.