Trial reportJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Comparing Proficiency of Laparoscopic Vaginal Cuff Suturing After Training with Two Simulators.
Trial report in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate whether a gynecology-specific laparoscopic trainer better prepares premedical and medical students to perform a laparoscopic vaginal cuff surgical task than the current standard laparoscopic trainer. Methods: In a masked, block-randomized controlled trial, 49 premedical and preclinical medical students were recruited, then randomized to a laparoscopic simulator: Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (EMIGS) or Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). A total of 26 participants were initially randomized to EMIGS and 23 participants to FLS. They trained for 2.5 hours on their assigned simulator. Video recordings of participants performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task were collected before and after simulator training. Videos were masked and reviewed by expert minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) surgeons and graded using a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) rubric. The pretraining and post-training GOALS scores were then compared between simulator groups. Results: Most demographic characteristics were similar across both groups. Ultimately, 24 participants from the EMIGS group and 21 participants from the FLS group were included in the final analysis. The mean difference between post and pre-composite GOALS scores was 6.50 for EMIGS and 4.07 for FLS, Conclusions: Neither EMIGS nor FLS was associated with better performance on the vaginal cuff suturing task after a single 2.5-hour training session.
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.