Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025
Cognitive learning versus practical "hands-on" training for acquisition of laparoscopic surgical skills: an optimal combination study.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training curricula involve practical training (PT) and cognitive learning (CL) to different extents. It has been proven that acquiring and training specific skills through CL can improve MIS skills. This study aimed to discover the most efficient combination of these two approaches and examine their effects on acquiring MIS skills in novices.
methodsSixty medical students without MIS experience participated in this randomized controlled study and were divided into three groups. The first group received the same amount of PT (50%) as CL (50%). The second group focused on PT (75%) compared to the CL (25%). The third group focused more on CL (75%), with less PT implemented (25%). Before and after training, participants performed an ex vivo laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCHE). Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores were used for MIS skill evaluation.
resultsGroup 1 improved all four performance assessments (global GOALS 14.3 vs. 18.0, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific GOALS 5.9 vs. 6.9, p = 0.016, global OSATS 19.4 vs. 26.4, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific OSATS 37.9 vs. 46.5, p = 0.004). Group 2 and Group 3 improved three of four performance scores (Group 2: global GOALS 15.0 vs. 18.4, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific GOALS 7.0 vs. 7.7, p = 0.115, global OSATS 19.6 vs. 25.8, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific OSATS 41.3 vs. 50.7, p = 0.001; Group 3: global GOALS 13.8 vs. 17.9, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific GOALS 5.8 vs. 6.6, p = 0.148, global OSATS 18.9 vs. 25.5, p < 0.001, LCHE-specific OSATS 36.8 vs. 43.5, p = 0.034).
conclusionsA balanced combination of PT and CL seems to offer the most effective training compared to predominantly PT or CL training. All three training modes improved MIS skills in novices.
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.