Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2025
Randomized Comparison of Video Demonstration, Simulation-Based Training, and Combination Using Silicone-Latex Simulation for Anal Sphincter Injury Repair in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 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
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to compare residents' skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.
methodsWe randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.
resultsThirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45-11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85-11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95-8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (p = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49-10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55-8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39-7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (p = 0.007).
conclusionsCombination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921803What 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.