Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41141650›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2025

Development and Validity of a Novel Transplant Operative Assessment Tool.

Alexander R Cortez, Riley Brian, Jenny Lam, Christy Boscardin, Mark Wilson, Christina Papageorge, Steven A Wisel, Tayyab Diwan, Shareef M Syed

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alexander R CortezDivision of Transplant Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9686-8052
Riley BrianDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Jenny LamCenter for Organ and Cell Transplantation, Scripps Health, La Jolla, CA.
Christy BoscardinDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Mark WilsonBerkeley School of Education, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Christina PapageorgeDivision of Transplant Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Steven A WiselComprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Tayyab DiwanDivision of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Shareef M SyedDivision of Transplant Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Assessment tools in surgical education help identify improvement areas for trainees. We developed and present validity evidence for a novel Transplant Operative Assessment Tool to optimize technical feedback for surgical trainees in transplantation. Methods: The Transplant Operative Assessment Tool assesses learners on anatomy, technical skills, judgment, and communication. Performance is rated across 5 competency levels. Content validity evidence included a construct map using existing literature and expert cognitive interviews. Ratings were used to develop an item response theory calibration, which was then used to evaluate the tool and provide validity evidence. Results: Eighty-two assessments for 28 trainees (16 residents, 12 fellows) were completed by 25 faculty surgeons across 4 programs. Fifty-six kidney transplants, 13 liver transplants, and 13 donor nephrectomies were assessed. The mean assessment completion time was 4.1 ± 4.3 min. Internal structure validity was evaluated by calculating item infit (range, 0.86-1.15), indicating a strong model fit and confirming a high quality of items. Internal consistency was also high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). There was a positive correlation between ratings and training level ( Conclusions: These data provide validity evidence for a novel operative assessment tool. This instrument can measure performance, monitor progress, document competency, and has the potential to provide valuable feedback.

Identifiers

PMID41141650
PMCPMC12548985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.