Observational studyBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Validity and reliability of simulation-based assessment tools for European Training Requirement-defined competencies in anaesthesiology: a two-centre observational pilot study.
Observational study in British journal of anaesthesia, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite ongoing efforts to harmonise postgraduate anaesthesiology training across Europe, significant variability persists among national programmes, and a unified certification process is lacking. Simulation is widely used in postgraduate anaesthesiology training, and several validated tools are available to assess both technical and nontechnical skills. However, use of such tools for summative assessments in specialist certification has not yet been established. This prospective, observational pilot study aimed to evaluate the validity and inter-rater reliability of two scenario-specific checklists, a global rating scale (GRS), and the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) tool in assessing competencies defined by the European postgraduate anaesthesiology curriculum. The study was conducted between May and September 2022 at two university hospitals in Germany and Spain. A total of 43 (23 third-year and 20 fourth-year) anaesthesiology trainees completed a knowledge test and managed two simulated perioperative emergencies. Performances were video-recorded and independently assessed by two blinded raters. Fourth-year trainees scored significantly higher than third-year trainees across all tools, providing validity evidence. Inter-rater reliability was moderate for Scenario 1 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range: 0.50 to 0.67) and moderate-to-good for Scenario 2 (ICC range: 0.67 to 0.76). These findings suggest that simulation-based assessments using structured tools can validly and reliably evaluate technical and nontechnical competencies outlined in the European anaesthesiology training curriculum. The results support the integration of such assessments into standardised summative evaluation frameworks in European postgraduate 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.