ArticleBMC medical education2026
Development of an electrosurgery-compatible simulation task for quantitatively assessing oral cancer resection skills: initial validity evidence.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of oral cancer resection is extremely important for patient outcomes, such as local control and survival. However, most current simulators either provide only rater-dependent feedback or are not compatible with electrosurgery. Therefore, we developed an electrosurgical simulation task for oral cancer resection that provides objective quantitative metrics and collected initial validity evidence.
methodsWe developed a soft tissue simulation task using a plant-derived model that supports electrosurgery. As quantitative measures demonstrating "ensuring appropriate margins" in oral cancer resection and "maintaining safety" during electrosurgery, we employed nine-directional margin error distance and tumor bed carbonization degree measured using a spectral colorimeter. As validity evidence of the task, 10 expert surgeons completed a questionnaire about the task. In addition, five experts and 12 novices performed the task, and quantitative data obtained from their performance was used for evaluation.
resultsThe replication of oral cancer resection was highly evaluated (4.4 out of 5 points), and quantitative measures for evaluating the skills of surgeons (4.8 out of 5 points) were agreed upon by experts. The internal consistency of the measures was good (Cronbach's alpha: 0.803). Compared to novices, experts had smaller margin errors (0.79 mm vs 2.45 mm), lower carbonization (ΔE: 2.33 vs 8.70), faster resection times, and fewer grasping attempts (all P < 0.001).
conclusionThis user-friendly plant-derived simulation task is compatible with electrosurgery and provides objective quantitative performance metrics. These findings support its use as a practical assessment tool for formative feedback in simulation-based training.
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.