ArticleScientific reports2024
Validity evidence of a new virtual reality simulator for phacoemulsification training in cataract surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of extended reality (XR) simulation on ophthalmology training outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Construct validity of five phacoemulsification modules on the EyeSi surgical simulator: a cross-sectional study across three levels of surgical expertise.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Validity assessment for technical skills and stress management of the HelpMeSeeActa ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Virtual reality simulator-based assessment of non-technical skills in eye surgery: managing complex cataract surgery.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Virtual Reality in Ophthalmic Surgical Education: Current Innovations and Future Perspectives.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Advances in the application of virtual reality technology in ophthalmic surgical skills training.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Global trends and practice patterns in virtual reality simulation training for ophthalmic surgery: an international survey use of virtual reality simulation training around the world.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac Simulator Technologies and Design for Medical Education and Auscultation Training: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Utility of Virtual Reality in Ophthalmology: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- The Metaverse in Ophthalmology: Application and Perceived Benefits, Challenges, Realistic Expectations, and Future Outlook.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to assess validity evidence of the new phacoemulsification module of the HelpMeSee [HMS] virtual reality simulator. Conducted at the Ophthalmology Department of Strasbourg University Hospital and Gepromed Education Department, Strasbourg, France, this cross-sectional study divided 20 surgeons into two groups based on their experience over or under 300 cataract surgeries. Surgeons filled out a background survey covering their phacoemulsification experience and prior simulator use before undergoing single-session simulations on the EyeSi [EYS] and HMS simulators. Handgrip strength was measured pre- and post-simulation to evaluate grip fatigue. Afterwards, surgeons rated the perceived realism on a seven-point Likert scale. Participants were predominantly right-handed males, with expert surgeons averaging 44 years and intermediate surgeons 29 years of age. Expert surgeons had completed around 2000 phacoemulsification surgeries compared to 150 by intermediates. Primary outcome was to assess the construct validity of HMS simulator based on the difference in total and modules scores between both groups. Significant performance differences were observed between the two groups, with experts scoring higher. HMS scores were 35.8 ± 1.5 out of 46 points for experts and 27.2 ± 2.3 for intermediates (p = 0.006). For EYS, scores were 405.2 ± 20.3 out of 500 points for experts and 327.8 ± 25.2 for intermediates (p = 0.028). Experts experienced significantly less grip fatigue post-simulation on HMS compared to intermediates. This research evaluates validity evidence of HMS's phacoemulsification modules for the first time. It emphasizes the potential to broaden simulation-based training by targeting diverse populations.
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.