ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Fellowship of the European Board of Surgery in the specialty of Minimally Invasive Surgery (F.E.B.S./MIS): a continuous evaluation.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) has become the standard approach for many procedures, driving rapid changes in training pathways and challenging traditional assessment and accreditation methods. To address this, the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), in collaboration with the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), established a working group in 2015 to develop a MIS-specific board fellowship exam (Fellow of European Board of Surgery in Minimally Invasive Surgery (F.E.B.S./MIS)). This rigorous, multi-modality examination assesses surgeons' knowledge and skills to ensure high-quality independent practice. This study provides an overview of the exam's development, structure, and quality assurance, with a focus on participant evaluation.
methodsEligibility followed UEMS criteria, including certified MIS training, case logbook documentation, and English proficiency. The exam comprised a 100-item multiple-choice test (MCQ) and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with clinical scenarios and validated technical skill tasks. Participants completed evaluation questionnaires on exam experience. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, linear regression, and independent-samples t-tests to examine associations between experience, performance, and total scores.
resultsBetween 2018 and 2024, 119 participants from 28 countries undertook the exam in seven European countries. Most were experienced attending surgeons, with pass rates of 61-88%. Higher credit scores were linked to passing, though not directly correlated, indicating experience alone did not ensure success. Fellowships were considered as the optimal exam time, with motivations including certification and knowledge updates. Feedback was highly positive, especially for oral case-based stations, and nearly all recommended the exam. Suggested improvements included streamlining the application process, enhancing practical training opportunities, offering flexible dates, and enabling exams in candidates' home countries or languages.
conclusionThe UEMS/EAES MIS Board exam is firmly established as a specialized certification for MIS and has been well received by participants. Nevertheless, its broader influence and professional recognition still require systematic assessment.
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.