ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
A novel tool for assessing psychomotor proficiency in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using simulation-based training.
Article 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopy is underutilized in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to limited access to training opportunities. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for treating gallbladder disease in high-income countries (HICs), yet the open approach predominates in LMICs. A low-cost, simulation-based educational module for teaching laparoscopic cholecystectomy was developed by an international collaboration. A novel tool for verifying proficiency (CHOLE-VOP), incorporating a procedural checklist, a global rating scale (GRS), and a final competency rating, was designed and piloted to evaluate psychomotor skill acquisition in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsFifty-two users completed the learning module, submitted a video recording of their performance on the tool, and performed self- and peer-assessment of videos using the CHOLE-VOP. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the CHOLE-VOP's ability to differentiate psychomotor performance across three experience levels [novice (no laparoscopic experience), intermediate (1-30 cases), and expert (> 30 cases)] and between settings (LMICs vs. HICs). Inter-rater agreement was measured between self-assessment and peer-assessment, across reviewer reviewer experience levels.
resultsAmong users [novices (14), intermediates (18), experts (17), unknown (3)], checklist scores significantly increased from novice (M = 28.16) to intermediate (M = 31.33) and expert (M = 32.66), P < 0.001. Both GRS and final ratings effectively discriminated between experience levels, P < 0.001. LMIC users had higher checklist scores (32.41 vs. 29.35, P = 0.008) and GRS scores (17.54 vs. 15.14, P = 0.002). Inter-rater agreement between self- and peer-assessments was moderate (ICC = 0.52), with poor agreement for novices (ICC = 0.24), who tended to overestimate their performance, and good agreement for intermediate users (ICC = 0.79).
conclusionThe CHOLE-VOP successfully discriminated between experience levels in a simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy training module. LMIC users outperformed HIC users in select skill parameters. Self-assessments, particularly among novices, showed limited concordance with peer-assessments.
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.