Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39461993›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Validity evidence of a new virtual reality simulator for phacoemulsification training in cataract surgery.

Rémi Yaïci, Jérémie Poirot, Lea Dormegny, Nicole Neumann, Eugénie Bazarya, Lauriana Solecki, Arnaud Sauer, David Gaucher, Anne Lejay, Ann Sofia Thomsen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Utility of Virtual Reality in Ophthalmology: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
    Review
  10. 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

12 authors.

Rémi YaïciGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France. remi.yaici@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Jérémie PoirotGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Lea DormegnyGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Nicole NeumannGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Eugénie BazaryaGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Lauriana SoleckiGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Arnaud SauerGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
David GaucherGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Anne LejayGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Ann Sofia ThomsenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark.
Nabil ChakfeGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.
Tristan BourcierGEPROMED, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PhacoemulsificationVirtual RealityAdultCataractCataract ExtractionClinical CompetenceComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmologySimulation TrainingSurgeonsConstruct validityEyeSiHandgrip fatigueHelpMeSee simulatorPhacoemulsification trainingVirtual reality simulation

Identifiers

PMID39461993
PMCPMC11513110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.