ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Feasibility, usability, and validity assessment of a novel plug-and-play virtual endoscopy simulator.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA virtual endoscopy simulator with a 3D-printed endoscope handle ("Endonix®") that can be used without dedicated equipment ("plug and play") to train endoscope handling has yet not been tested. We prospectively evaluated the simulator's validity, feasibility, and usability in novices, beginners, and experienced endoscopists.
methodsDelegates at two congresses (DGVS and ENDOCLUBNORD, both 2024 in Germany) were invited. 310 complete datasets (146 DGVS, 164 ENDOCLUBNORD) were analyzed. Each participant performed two different simulation modules and completed a survey comprising questions on endoscopy experience, simulator evaluation, as well as the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).
resultsThe simulator demonstrated good face validity, but only merely sufficient content validity as 67.8% of all participants favored its implementation into endoscopy training. Construct validity was also favorable as experienced endoscopists completed both modules faster than novices or beginners (P < 0.001). In line, criterion validity was given as performance correlated with self-assessed experience. The SUS yielded 75 out of 100 points (corresponding to good usability) with no discernible difference between novices, beginners, and experienced endoscopists. The NASA-TLX, ranging from 0 to 600 points, reflecting level of exhaustion, exhibited a higher score in novices and beginners than experienced endoscopists (285 vs. 210 vs. 225 points, respectively, P < 0.001). Only 16.1% of participants had access to a simulator at their respective institutions, while 79.4% wished for the incorporation of simulators into endoscopy training.
conclusionThe first validation of a novel virtual simulator demonstrated its feasibility and usability, with mostly sufficient validity. Many participants favored its implementation in endoscopy training, particularly for novice and beginner endoscopists, who were identified as the most suitable target learners.
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.