ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Gauging the Optimal Simulator Complexity for Learning Cleft Lip Repair: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
Background: Simulation is valuable for surgical education. The popularity of high-fidelity cleft lip simulation has grown, yet cost limits widespread use. To address this, we developed a reduced-complexity prototype that preserves essential anatomy (skin/soft tissue and orbicularis oris muscle) but omits advanced features found in a previous trainer (nasal cartilages and skeleton). To evaluate the effect of simulator complexity, a hybrid retrospective-prospective cohort study compared trainees' self-assessed improvement using both the new lower complexity simulator (LCS) and its higher complexity simulator (HCS) predecessor. Methods: Residents' and fellows' self-assessed knowledge and confidence in specific aspects of cleft lip repair were compared pre- and postsimulation using a 6-question, 4-point, cleft lip self-assessment and a 6-question, 5-point self-confidence questionnaire. Poisson regression analysis was used to analyze the effects of simulator type on self-improvement. Results: Among 52 participants, 26 used the new LCS, and 26 trained with the old HCS. Significant improvements pre- to postsimulation were observed in both groups. The difference in net score improvement between the LCS (mean = 3.7, SD = 2.2, Conclusions: For relative novices, a reduced-complexity cleft lip simulator is likely as effective as its more complex counterpart. Cost-effective, reduced-complexity simulators have the potential to broaden accessibility of simulation-based education.
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.