ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Validity of task-specific metrics for assessment in perineal proctectomy.
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 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validity of task-specific metrics for performance assessment in laparoscopic crural repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Real-Time Haptic-Based Soft Body Suturing in Virtual Open Surgery Simulations.Computers & graphics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerineal proctectomy is a complex procedure that requires advanced skills. Currently, there are no simulators for training in this procedure. As part of our objective of developing a virtual reality simulator, our goal was to develop and validate task-specific metrics for the assessment of performance for this procedure. We conducted a three-phase study to establish task-specific metrics, obtain expert consensus on the appropriateness of the developed metrics, and establish the discriminant validity of the developed metrics.
methodsIn phase I, we utilized hierarchical task analysis to formulate the metrics. In phase II, a survey involving expert colorectal surgeons determined the significance of the developed metrics. Phase III was aimed at establishing the discriminant validity for novices (PGY1-3) and experts (PGY4-5 and faculty). They performed a perineal proctectomy on a rectal prolapse model. Video recordings were independently assessed by two raters using global ratings and task-specific metrics for the procedure. Total scores for both metrics were computed and analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A Mann-Whitney U test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction was used to evaluate between-group differences. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was computed to assess the correlation between global and task-specific scores.
resultsIn phase II, a total of 23 colorectal surgeons were recruited and consensus was obtained on all the task-specific metrics. In phase III, participants (n = 22) included novices (n = 15) and experts (n = 7). There was a strong positive correlation between the global and task-specific scores (rs = 0.86; P < 0.001). Significant between-group differences were detected for both global (χ
conclusionsUsing a biotissue rectal prolapse model, this study documented high IRR and significant discriminant validity evidence in support of video-based assessment using task-specific metrics.
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.