ArticleEuropean urology open science2024
Development of the European Laparoscopic Intermediate Urological Skills LUSs2 Curriculum: A Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology.
Article in European urology open science, 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.
- Consensus-informed Development of Scoring Systems for Intermediate Laparoscopic Simulation Modules: An ESU Laparoscopic Workgroup Initiative.European urology open science · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: While programmes such as the European Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills have made strides in foundational training, a significant gap exists for intermediate and advanced laparoscopy education. Our objective is to develop and validate the European laparoscopic intermediate urological skills (LUSs2) curriculum, which will establish uniformity in the training of urological laparoscopic procedures and facilitate proficiency among practitioners. Methods: The study combines a literature review, cognitive task analysis development by a steering group, and a two-round Delphi survey involving international experts in urological laparoscopy. Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥70% among experts. The survey included statements on various laparoscopic procedures, assessed on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Key findings and limitations: The Delphi process achieved consensus on 85% (235/275) of statements, indicating a strong agreement on the curriculum's content. Areas covered include renal hilum dissection, major vessel injury management, enucleation and renorrhaphy, vesicourethral anastomosis, and pyeloplasty. Limitations include the nonsystematic nature of the literature review and potential biases inherent in expert-based consensus methods. Conclusions and clinical implications: The LUSs2 curriculum significantly advances the standardised training of laparoscopic urological skills. It offers a detailed, consensus-validated framework that addresses the need for uniformity in surgical education and aims to enhance surgical proficiency and patient care. Patient summary: This study presents the development of a new standardised training curriculum for urological laparoscopic surgery. We intend this curriculum to improve the quality of surgical training and ensure high-quality patient care.
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.