ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment of operative competence for higher specialist trainees in general surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From operating room to leadership room: a systematic review of simulation-based interventions for leadership development in general surgery.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on laparoscopic liver biopsy.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Research trends in virtual reality surgical simulation for education: a systematic review.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2025Review
- Competency Assessment in Training in African Countries.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation is increasingly being explored as an assessment modality. This study sought to develop and collate validity evidence for a novel simulation-based assessment of operative competence. We describe the approach to assessment design, development, pilot testing, and validity investigation.
methodsEight procedural stations were generated using both virtual reality and bio-hybrid models. Content was identified from a previously conducted Delphi consensus study of trainers. Trainee performance was scored using an equally weighted Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) tool and a modified Procedure-Based Assessment (PBA) tool. Validity evidence was analyzed in accordance with Messick's validity framework. Both 'junior' (ST2-ST4) and 'senior' trainees (ST 5-ST8) were included to allow for comparative analysis.
resultsThirteen trainees were assessed by ten assessors across eight stations. Inter-station reliability was high (α = 0.81), and inter-rater reliability was acceptable (inter-class correlation coefficient 0.77). A significant difference in mean station score was observed between junior and senior trainees (44.82 vs 58.18, p = .004), while overall mean scores were moderately correlated with increasing training year (rs = .74, p = .004, Kendall's tau-b .57, p = 0.009). A pass-fail score generated using borderline regression methodology resulted in all 'senior' trainees passing and 4/6 of junior trainees failing the assessment.
conclusionThis study reports validity evidence for a novel simulation-based assessment, designed to assess the operative competence of higher specialist trainees in general 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.