ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Education and training in microsurgery: a current global overview.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Microsurgical skills are challenging to acquire and maintain, also presenting significant educational differences among practitioners. By exploring the current state of microsurgical training from the surgeon's perspective (including demographics, education experience, and infrastructure details), this paper aims to give a first piece of information to enrich and promote debate and research. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to synthesize prepublished data on microsurgical training. Following this initial step and adhering to international guidelines for survey research, a new survey was designed to update existing information and address identified data gaps. The survey was distributed via personal contacts and scientific forums, ensuring respondent anonymity. It included exploratory questions across the following descriptive areas: (1) respondent demographics; (2) training experiences; (3) microsurgical knowledge; and (4) training center characteristics. Results: The survey gathered responses from 72 individuals across 25 countries and 9 specialties. Expertise of the participants was evenly distributed: 36.2% were trainees or recent graduates, 33.3% had an intermediate level, and 30.4% were experienced professionals. A unanimous consensus was reached on the superior efficacy of team training. Nearly half (43%) reported a lack of training facilities in their cities, while 15% identified financial constraints and 14% accessibility issues as major obstacles. Most participants (85%) expressed that microsurgical technique learning/training should be a priority. Conclusion: This exploratory international survey offers an initial glimpse into the underexamined field of microsurgical training. Based on a modest sample, the findings reveal disparities in access, infrastructure, and instructional methods. Though preliminary, the data aim to spark discussion and guide future, more comprehensive research efforts.
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.