ArticleZentralblatt fur Chirurgie2025
[Analogue vs. Digital: Gendered Perceptions of Endovascular Simulation-based Training].
Article in Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie, 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
Despite the increasing number of female medical graduates, women remain underrepresented in surgical leadership roles. Previous studies have highlighted gender disparities in operative autonomy, self-assessment, and psychological burden. Simulation-based training may offer a means to reduce such disparities. This study aimed to assess gender-specific differences in the evaluation of various endovascular training models.Between March and August 2024, 32 physicians (16 female, 16 male) from vascular surgery and radiology departments participated in a prospective study at the University Hospital in Innsbruck. Each participant performed a standardised iliac artery procedure using three training models: a flexible and a stiff 3D-printed vascular model, and a digital simulator. A structured questionnaire evaluated face validity, construct validity, and concurrent validity. Gender differences were analysed statistically.There were no significant gender differences in face validity ratings or model preferences. However, female participants consistently rated the construct validity of all models significantly higher (p < 0.05). Male participants had greater procedural experience, despite similar durations of professional experience. Both genders expressed strong support for regular simulation-based training.Simulation-based training is broadly recognised as a key educational tool across genders. The higher construct validity ratings by female participants suggest that simulation is perceived as a compensatory method for developing procedural skills. Structured implementation of simulation training may help reduce disparities in endovascular education.
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.