Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39106003›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

Development and evaluation of a societal core robotic surgery accreditation curriculum for the UK.

Matthew W E Boal, Asma Afzal, Jack Gorard, Aishwarya Shah, Freweini Tesfai, Walaa Ghamrawi, Matthew Tutton, Jawad Ahmad, Chelliah Selvasekar, Jim Khan and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pre-Procedural Robotic Surgery Curricula: A Systematic Review and Thematic Meta-Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

11 authors.

Matthew W E BoalThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks' Hospital, London, UK.
Asma AfzalThe Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, London, UK.
Jack GorardUniversity College London, London, UK.
Aishwarya ShahUniversity College London, London, UK.
Freweini TesfaiThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks' Hospital, London, UK.
Walaa GhamrawiThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks' Hospital, London, UK.
Matthew TuttonThe Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, London, UK.
Jawad AhmadThe Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, London, UK.
Chelliah SelvasekarThe Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, London, UK.
Jim KhanThe Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, London, UK.
Nader K FrancisThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks' Hospital, London, UK. N.francis@griffininstitute.org.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardised proficiency-based progression is the cornerstone of safe robotic skills acquisition, however, is currently lacking within surgical training curricula. Expert consensuses have defined a modular pathway to accredit surgeons. This study aimed to address the lack of a formal, pre-clinical core robotic skills, proficiency-based accreditation curriculum in the UK. Novice robotic participants underwent a four-day pre-clinical core robotic skills curriculum incorporating multimodal assessment. Modifiable-Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (M-GEARS), VR-automated performance metrics (APMs) and Objective Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) error methodology assessed performance at the beginning and end of training. Messick's validity concept and a curriculum evaluation model were utilised. Feedback was collated. Proficiency-based progression, benchmarking, tool validity and reliability was assessed through comparative and correlational statistical methods. Forty-seven participants were recruited. Objective assessment of VR and dry models across M-GEARS, APMs and OCHRA demonstrated significant improvements in technical skill (p < 0.001). Concurrent validity between assessment tools demonstrated strong correlation in dry and VR tasks (r = 0.64-0.92, p < 0.001). OCHRA Inter-rater reliability was excellent (r = 0.93, p < 0.001 and 81% matched error events). A benchmark was established with M-GEARS and for the curriculum at 80%. Thirty (63.82%) participants passed. Feedback was 5/5 stars on average, with 100% recommendation. Curriculum evaluation fulfilled all five domains of Messick's validity. Core robotic surgical skills training can be objectively evaluated and benchmarked to provide accreditation in basic robotic skills. A strategy is necessary to enrol standardised curricula into national surgical training at an early stage to ensure patient safety.

Indexed as

AccreditationClinical CompetenceCurriculumRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsUnited KingdomCurriculumDevelopmentEvaluationProficiency-based progressionRoboticsSurgeryTraining

Identifiers

PMID39106003
PMCPMC11303427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.