ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Validity assessment for technical skills and stress management of the HelpMeSee
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. 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.
- Comment on "Advances in the application of virtual reality technology in ophthalmic surgical skills training".International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the validity of the HelpMeSee Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery (MSICS) module as a virtual reality training tool for technical skills and stress management in ophthalmology.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled 47 volunteer surgeons from five groups: four groups of eye surgeons with increasing experience (novice, junior, senior and expert) and a fifth group of experts from other specialties. Participants completed two standardized MSICS training runs on the HelpMeSee simulator. Performance scores, penalties and completion time were recorded. Ergonomics were assessed via the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) score, and stress was evaluated subjectively and objectively using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y (STAI-Y) and the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) score. Data from the two runs were analysed and compared across groups.
resultsOverall scores increased significantly from novice residents (32.4 ± 10.7 out of 72) to the expert ophthalmic surgeons (50.1 ± 9.41) (p < 0.001). Non-ophthalmic experts had a lower mean score (16.8 ± 18.0). Total penalties, particularly in the second run, decreased with experience among eye surgeons, while experts from other specialties incurred the highest penalties. Time analysis did not differ between groups, as for RULA or STAI-Y scores. The mean ANI score decreased with experience, suggesting higher stress levels in more experienced participants.
conclusionsThe HelpMeSee MSICS module effectively differentiates surgical experience levels, confirming its validity as a tool for technical skills training. The ANI score demonstrated modified behaviour in expert surgeons, suggesting the simulator's potential for assessing non-technical skills. These findings support the use of this virtual reality simulator for objective, skills-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.