ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Coaching for improving clinical performance of surgeons: a scoping review.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgical coaching has been proven to effectively enhance clinical performance. However, diverse implementation strategies present challenges when initiating new programs. Our scoping review aimed to synthesize the existing literature on surgical coaching, thereby informing the direction of future coaching initiatives. We reviewed published articles in PubMed/Medline and suppletory manuscripts from reference lists. The protocol of our review was registered (osf.io, Z3S8H). Inclusion criteria were studies that provided a detailed description of structured surgical coaching programs aimed at improving clinical performance. Excluded were studies focused on mentoring, teaching, or other forms of coaching that did not align with our specific definition of surgical coaching. We extracted and charted variables such as authors, publication year, geographic region, and others for subsequent analysis. A total of 117 studies were screened, and 11 met our inclusion criteria. Among these, five articles (45%) employed objective metrics to evaluate clinician performance. One study reported on the overall complication rates within 30 days as a measured outcome. Surgeons were the primary coachees in ten of the studies (91%), and the training of coaches was deemed necessary in seven studies (64%). The analyses revealed a preference for expert coaching models (6/11, 55%), video-based coaching (9/11, 82%), and postoperative timelines (7/11, 64%). Various coaching models were identified, including PRACTICE, GROW, and WISCONSIN. As an effective education method, surgical coaching has been conducted in many regions with varied designs. The implementation of structured surgical coaching programs offers substantial benefits for trainers, enhancing efficiency. Future research should focus on generating higher-level evidence, utilizing objective measurement tools, and integrating innovative technologies to further enhance the efficacy of surgical coaching programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39831931What 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.