Trial reportBJU international2026
Randomised trial on the economic impact of proficiency-based progression vs conventional robotic surgical training.
Trial report in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04541615 (Prospective and Randomized Assessment of the Impact of Proficiency-based Progression E-learning Prior to Skills Training on a Robotic Surgical Task), which is not on this 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.
Prospective and Randomized Assessment of the Impact of Proficiency-based Progression E-learning Prior to Skills Training on a Robotic Surgical Task
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proficiency-based progression (PBP) training compared to conventional surgical training approaches, and to determine whether PBP training implementation is economically justified when scaled to large numbers of trainees.
methodsEconomic analysis was performed using data from the prospective, randomised, and blinded Orsi Surgical Skills E-learning Trial (OSSET; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04541615) at ORSI Academy (Belgium), where 47 medical trainees without prior robotic surgery experience were randomised into four groups, each with progressively reduced adherence to the PBP methodology. All trainees completed simulation-based training on a validated bladder-urethra anastomosis model, ranging from full PBP training with metric-based assessment and proficiency benchmarks (Group 1) to a traditional apprenticeship model (Group 4). The primary outcome was training cost, evaluated per trainee and based on programme scalability (12-500 trainees), including expenses for accommodation, laboratory time, and metric development. Cost equivalence points and scalability thresholds were identified to compare the financial impact of the four training strategies.
resultsThe PBP training was more expensive than conventional methods for small cohorts (e.g. €14 139 vs €7067 per trainee for 12 trainees), but became significantly more cost-effective beyond 25 trainees (equivalence point). At 500 trainees, total PBP training cost was €1.69 million compared to €3.53 million for conventional training, a 110% cost advantage. All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001).
conclusionsWe conclude that PBP training is significantly more effective and becomes increasingly cost-efficient as the number of trainees increases. These findings support its integration into high-volume national training programmes, offering a scalable and economically sustainable alternative to apprenticeship-based surgical education.
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.