ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2024
Prospective study on comparison of simulation-based mastery learning versus conventional apprentice-based learning for basic endoscopy training.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Harmonising Gastroenterology Training: An Analysis of Gastroenterology Training Curricula of the United European Gastroenterology Member Societies.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Observational
- Article
- Prospective study on comparison of simulation-based mastery learning versus conventional apprentice-based learning for basic endoscopy training.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) method holds promise for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of endoscopy training. However, further study is required to establish its advantages over the traditional method. We aim to prospectively compare outcomes between gastrointestinal endoscopy trainees taught using SBML and those trained using conventional apprenticeship methods for upper endoscopy.
methodsWe performed a blinded, stepwise, comparative study with SBML participants deliberately practicing deconstructed steps of upper endoscopy and apprenticeship participants observing procedures. Three blinded trainers assessed trainees' skills using a validated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) tool pre-and post-training. The minimum pass standard (MPS) was set at a score > 2. We compared MPS of the groups using standard statistics and paired t-test.
resultsSix trainees were enrolled in the SBML group, and six in the conventional group. All trainees in the SBML group passed the minimum standard compared with the conventional group (P = 0.06). All trainees in the SBML group obtained significantly higher scores in overall basic GI endoscopic skills, esophageal, stomach, and duodenal observation skills than those of the conventional apprenticeship group (P < 0.05). The SBML curriculum led to three times more learning (Cohen's d = 6.5) than the conventional method (Cohen's d = 1.8).
conclusionThis prospective study supports SBML for upper endoscopy training compared with the traditional apprentice-based method. SBML resulted in a steeper learning curve, as trainees learned three times more during the same period. Furthermore, trainees developed a uniform competency level at the end of training.
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.