ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Evaluating the evaluators: does C-SATS measure up?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRobotic-assisted surgery has increased in prevalence, particularly in general surgery. The number of cases required to achieve adequate proficiency in robotic surgery, however, and the training metrics that correlate best with proficiency remain unclear. We sought to better define proficiency-based benchmarks in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies (RAC) and inguinal hernia repairs (RIHR) using a commercial crowd source based on competency platform.
methodsMulti-institutional cohort study in which 48 surgeons (senior residents, fellows, and practicing physicians) submitted representative videos of themselves performing a RAC and/or RIHR. Subjects subsequently underwent blinded case video reviews using the C-SATS platform, which utilizes the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) rubric. Participating surgeons self-reported surgical case volume. Primary outcome was correlation of GEARS scores with historic procedure case volume. Secondary outcomes included construct validity of GEARS scores as an operative proficiency metric.
resultsTotal GEARS scores and historical case volume showed positive correlation for both RAC (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001) and RIHR (r = 0.54, p = 0.001) among all performers. On subgroup analysis, no correlation was seen for resident/fellow physicians (r = 0.39, p = 0.11 for RAC; r = 0.22, p = 0.49 for RIHR) or those with < 50 historic case volume (r = 0.14, p = 0.55 for RAC; r = 0.21, p = 0.54 for RIHR). No difference in total GEARS scores was seen between resident/fellow and practicing physicians for either RAC (20.21 v 20.25, p = 0.82) or RIHR (20.45 v 20.46, p = 0.95), nor in those with < 50 or ≥ 50 historic case volume in RAC (20.16 v 20.33, p = 0.33) and RIHR (20.35 v 20.49, p = 0.48). GEARS scores by domain (bimanual dexterity, depth perception, efficiency, force sensitivity, and robotic control) and surgical step (exposure of triangle of calot, clipping and division of cystic artery/duct, and dissection of gallbladder; mobilizing peritoneal flap, hernia sac dissection, and mesh placement) were similar across both groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionC-SATS-derived GEARS scores correlated to overall surgeon historical case volume for RA cholecystectomy and IHR, but not among novice performers. This methodology was unable to differentiate between novice and expert performers for these procedures. There remains a need for high-fidelity and discerning robotic skills evaluation platforms for trainees and novice surgeons.
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.