ArticleCureus2025
Modeling the Microsurgical Learning Curve Using a Poisson-Based Statistical Approach for Skill Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taking microvascular training through the elevator: institutional experience in structured microsurgical training in India.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Education and training in microsurgery: a current global overview.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Analyzing Procedural Time and Its Relationship to Performance in Microsurgical Training: A Pilot Study.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe learning curve (LC), a multifaceted concept, plays a pivotal role in evaluating surgical training. This study aimed to define critical inflection points in the microsurgical learning curve, develop a reliable index for skill assessment, and statistically validate this approach using Poisson distribution theory.
methodA standardized microsurgical training protocol was employed using a biological simulator. Data regarding time to complete the task and error rates were collected over 132 attempts by a single operator. The primary outcome variable, the major mistake average (MMA), was used to generate a learning curve. Its progression was analyzed using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modeling and validated with Poisson dispersion theory to determine the randomness of error occurrence at advanced stages of training. The entire trial was conducted by a single operator, a consultant neurosurgeon from our institution, who had been properly instructed on the protocol and the corresponding operator's manual.
resultsTask completion time (TCT) ranged from 860 to 3,054 seconds (mean: 1,472 seconds; R² = 0.561). MMA peaked at the 19th attempt (0.263) and decreased progressively, reaching 0.091 by the 132nd attempt (R² = 0.835). Three distinct phases of learning were identified, culminating in a plateau phase during which major mistakes followed a Poisson distribution (Chi² = 3.841), suggesting random occurrence independent of skill deficits.
conclusionThe MMA was found to be a robust and objective indicator of microsurgical proficiency. Its statistical validation using Poisson distribution theory supports its utility in skill assessment and training programs. Further studies involving multiple operators are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.