Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Fine motor and sensory proficiency: implications for simulator-based surgical assessments.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSimulation technologies have advanced surgical education by enhancing motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and sensory acuity. This study examines correlations between sensory-motor skills and surgical simulator performance.
methodsThe cross-sectional and observational study included fifty medical doctors without surgical experience. Assessments included the McKinnon two-point discrimination test, the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test, and the Nine-Hole Peg test. Performance scores for forceps, anti-tremor, and bimanual training modules were recorded using the Eyesi Surgical Simulator (VRmagic
resultsThe mean age was 28.6 ± 4.4 years, with 28 females and 22 males. The mean value of McKinnon's two-point static discrimination test was 3.08 ± 0.72 mm, the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament test was 2.42 ± 0.29 inches, and the Nine-Hole Peg Test mean completion time was 19.04 ± 2.60 seconds. Two-point discrimination test showed a significant negative correlation with bimanual training module scores within the 95% confidence interval (r =-0.41, p = 0.0027) but weak, non-significant correlations with forceps module (r = -0.23, p = 0.101) and anti-tremor modules (r = -0.10; p = 0.505). Monofilament test scores showed no significant correlations with simulator modules. The Nine-Hole Peg test correlated significantly with bimanual performance (r =-0.42, p = 0.002 and weakly with forceps scores (r =-0.24, p = 0.090).
conclusionSimulation devices enhance surgical training by identifying sensory-motor deficits and adapting training. Motor skill and sensory acuity are associated with better bimanual performance and emphasize individualized approaches for optimal outcomes.
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.