ReviewFrontiers in surgery2025
Embedding mental rehearsal in surgery: a comprehensive review of the evidence.
Review in Frontiers 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental rehearsal (MR), the deliberate practice of skills specific to a procedure, has been successfully used in sports and music training for decades, but has not been adopted in surgery. This narrative review explores MR's role in surgical training and clinical practice, evaluating its effectiveness in motor skill acquisition, technical and non-technical skill development, and real world clinical implementation. Our aim was to assess MR's impact on both surgical education and clinical performance, while identifying the barriers to its routine adoption in surgical training. Methods: We searched for relevant studies on the topic and impacts of MR in surgery using the Medline database up to December 2024. A range of studies were included covering mental rehearsal, surgical education, surgical training, and surgical outcomes. The primary outcomes were to provide insights into the mechanisms and implementation of MR in surgery and to assess the potential impact of MR on surgical outcomes. Results: The narrative review provides scientific insights into the mechanisms of MR in surgery and describes in detail the implementation methodology. The majority of evidence demonstrates that MR is beneficial when used as an adjunct approach to other forms of training. Moreover, there is evidence to support MR as a low-cost and valuable learning technique. Many questions remain regarding training schedules including the optimal duration and nature of the MR sessions, accommodating the surgeon's prior experience, optimal number of repetitions, and addressing the abilities of the participants to perform mental imagery. Most studies have heterogenous methods, diffuse aims and poor descriptions of the specific intervention components. Several studies applied MR in demanding real-life surgical environments and demonstrated feasibility in surgery. Conclusions: The preliminary findings suggest that MR may improve the performance of operators and operating teams as an efficient adjuvant to traditional surgical skills training methods. More work is needed to better understand how MR interventions can best be implemented to improve training, practice, and outcomes in routine surgical practice.
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.