Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39824306›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology. Retina2025

Assessing Surgical Competency among Fellows in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Survey of Fellowship Program Directors and Fellows.

Muhammad Hassan, Kapil Mishra, Linus Amarikwa, Omesh P Gupta, Sunil Srivastava, Adrienne W Scott, Philip J Ferrone, Yannek I Leiderman, Prithvi Mruthyunjaya

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology. Retina, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Muhammad HassanCincinnati Eye Institute/University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kapil MishraGavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, California.
Linus AmarikwaByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Omesh P GuptaMid Atlantic Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sunil SrivastavaCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Adrienne W ScottWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Philip J FerroneVitreoretinal Consultants of New York, New York, New York.
Yannek I LeidermanDuke Eye Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Prithvi MruthyunjayaByers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Electronic address: prithvi9@stanford.edu.

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe surveyed vitreoretinal (VR) fellowship program directors (PDs) to elucidate how they assess surgical competency among VR fellows. In addition, we also surveyed fellowship program graduates for the years 2022 and 2023 regarding assessment metrics and tools used during VR fellowship training.

designWeb-based, cross-sectional descriptive study. SUBJECTS: Fellowship PDs and recent fellowship graduates in the United States and Canada

methodsThe survey, distributed via email, queried participants about several aspects of assessing surgical competency in VR training including surgical numbers, teaching/assessment methods used to assess fellow surgical competency, comfort of fellows for various surgical procedures, appropriate degree of supervision, and criteria for a hypothetical national competence standard. A Likert scale was utilized for questions capturing participants' opinion. Mean response scores were reported.

main outcome measuresComparison of responses between PDs and fellows.

resultsForty-two PDs (42.1%) (33 university-based and 9 private institutions) and 40 fellows (16.8%) (28 academic and 12 private institutions) responded to the survey. Fellows expect a higher minimum number of vitrectomies (≥300) by graduation than PDs (≥200). Both PDs and fellows ranked direct observation of fellow (4.95/4.75), discussion with other faculty on fellow surgical performance (3.93/3.60), and outcomes of fellow surgical cases (3.88/3.53) (P > 0.05) respectively, as top 3 teaching tools. Both PDs and fellows expressed high comfort levels with various complex surgeries, such as primary scleral buckle (4.45/4.60), proliferative vitreoretinopathy detachments (4.57/4.45), advanced diabetic retinal detachments (4.57/4.38), and giant retinal tears (4.64/4.50), by the time of graduation. Autonomy was also considered an important indicator of surgical competence by both groups. However, apart from direct surgical experience, fellows rated other educational tools lower than PDs. There was overall agreement between the groups on several aspects of a hypothetical national competence standard.

conclusionsThis survey identified that the key tools utilized to assess surgical proficiency were direct observation of surgery by attending physician, discussions about fellow performance among faculty, and outcomes of fellow surgical cases. Both groups emphasized that by graduation, fellows should be proficient in several complex VR surgeries. These findings suggest a need for a more systematic approach to assess surgical competency of VR fellows. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateFellowships and ScholarshipsInternship and ResidencyOphthalmologyVitreoretinal SurgeryCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesFellowsProgram directorsSurgical competencySurveyVitreoretinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID39824306
PMCPMC12229773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.