ReviewBrain sciences2024
Neurosurgical Microvascular Anastomosis: Systematic Review of the Existing Simulators and Proposal of a New Training Classification System.
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature lacks a combined analysis of neurosurgical microvascular anastomosis training models. We performed a systematic literature search to provide an overview of the existing models and proposed a classification system based on the level of simulation and reproducibility of the microvascular anastomosis.
methodsThe systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines. We consulted MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and EMBASE independently for papers about bypass training models. Every training model was analyzed according to six tasks supposed to esteem their fidelity to the real operative setting by using a scoring system from zero to two. Finally, authors classified the models into five classes, from A to E, by summing the individual scores.
resultsThis study included 109 papers for analysis. Training models were grouped into synthetic tubes, ex vivo models (animal vessels, fresh human cadavers, human placentas) and in vivo simulators (live animals-rats, rabbits, pigs). By applying the proposed classification system, live animals and placentas obtained the highest scores, falling into class A (excellent simulators). Human cadavers and animal vessels (ex vivo) were categorized in class B (good simulators), followed by synthetic tubes (class C, reasonable simulators).
conclusionsThe proposed classification system helps the neurosurgeon to analyze the available training models for microvascular anastomosis critically, and to choose the most appropriate one according to the skills they need to improve.
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.