ReviewJB & JS open access
A New Procedure-Specific Assessment Tool is Superior to Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills in Evaluating Orthopaedic Technical Skills: A Cadaveric Simulation Validation Study.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Competency-based medical education relies on assessment to evaluate performance and guide learning. This study compared the validity evidence and psychometric performance of the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), adapted for distal radius fracture fixation, with a procedure-specific instrument-the Distal Radius Fracture Assessment of Technical Expertise (DRF-RATE)-for assessing technical performance during volar locking plate (VLP) fixation of distal radius fractures (DRFs). Methods: First-year orthopaedic residents (n = 12) and practicing trauma or hand surgeons (n = 13) performed standardized VLP fixation on a cadaveric DRF model. Anonymous video recordings were independently assessed by 2 orthopaedic trauma surgeons and 2 hand surgeons using either OSATS or DRF-RATE. Validity evidence was gathered in accordance with the Messick contemporary validity framework. Results: Internal consistency reliability was good-to-excellent for OSATS (α = 0.82-0.98) and DRF-RATE (α = 0.95). Interrater reliability was weaker for OSATS (r = 0.59-0.69) than for DRF-RATE (r = 0.78), though both demonstrated systematic rater bias. OSATS discriminated between novices and experienced surgeons (p = 0.02), whereas DRF-RATE demonstrated even stronger discrimination (p < 0.001). Contrasting-groups analysis revealed higher misclassification rates with OSATS (21%-40%) than DRF-RATE (11%-13%), indicating superior accuracy for the latter. Conclusions: The DRF-RATE demonstrated stronger and more comprehensive validity evidence than the modified OSATS, with better reliability, higher discrimination and classification accuracy, and overall superior psychometric performance compared with OSATS. Its procedural granularity and structured design address key limitations of OSATS and support detailed, high-quality formative feedback for distal radius fracture fixation.
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.