ReviewFrontiers in surgery2025
Overview of surgical training and assessment of surgical skills: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Preliminary validity evidence for a platform-specific assessment tool for robotic setup and docking.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- [Research on surgical instrument segmentation algorithm based on frequency-domain adaptive feature decomposition and visual Mamba].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
- Nationwide Analysis of Pipelining and Medical School Affiliation in the US Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Match.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the existence of international, scientifically validated methods for manual surgical skills training and assessment. The aim was to create a descriptive chronological summary of the existing evidence and conclusions in the included articles. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched twice for reviews published between 1997 and October 2023 and between 1997 and January 2024. The search terms used were "review," "surgical training," "surgical skills," "assessment," and "evaluation" in combinations. In all, 38 reviews were included (systematic and non-systematic). In addition, 30 non-reviews were selected for the introduction and the historical background. Publications on non-technical skills were excluded. Results: Great efforts have been invested by committees and working groups to define methods for surgical training and assessment. However, the work was found to be scattered, without attempts to be overarching and internationally valuable, and few training methods were strictly scientifically validated. Many reviews were limited to (1) one surgical procedure, (2) to one surgical specialty, (3) to one surgical method such as endoscopic procedures or "robotics," or (4) to a limited geographical area. Conclusions: Scientifically validated, generally applicable methods for surgical training and assessment could not be found. Further research is needed to find simple, equal, and overarching methods to allow valid and reliable comparisons of manual surgical competencies across borders, in financially strained healthcare where resources for adequate training and evaluation of skills may not be available. Financial aspects can be included in future studies, to correlate costs for training with costs for avoidable surgical complications.
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.