Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38947438›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Characteristics of hysteroscopic training models: A review of the literature.

Wanying Bao, Jin Jia, Zhengyu Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Wanying BaoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Jin JiaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Zhengyu LiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to summarize the characteristics and applications of current hysteroscopic training models. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies published before March 2024. Manual screening of references and citation tracking were also performed. Results: Reported hysteroscopic training models included virtual reality simulators, non-biological material models, plant tissue models, animal tissue models, and human tissue models. No training model was distinctly superior in terms of realism, haptic feedback, availability of standardized scoring of operations, preparation difficulty, reusability of surgical procedure, and prices. Utilizing any type of models for hysteroscopy simulation training could assist trainees in enhancing relevant knowledge, skills, self-confidence, and comfort, but virtual reality models had an advantage in training capacity. Conclusions: Each hysteroscopic training model has its advantages and disadvantages. An appropriate training curriculum is needed to efficiently leverage the merits of different models. The realism and training effectiveness of various training models need to be compared using rigorously designed studies and standard evaluation tools.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyModelSimulationTraining

Identifiers

PMID38947438
PMCPMC11214388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.