Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Comparative validation of a cost-effective in-house 3D-printed LLETZ simulator versus a commercial training model.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraditional surgical training methods such as "learning-by-doing" raise ethical and methodological concerns. To improve training and reduce patient risk, a 3D-printed LLETZ simulator was developed. While initial studies showed advantages over a conventional model, they were limited to medical students and lacked comparison with a commercially available simulator.
methodsA single-center study was conducted at the University Hospital Wuerzburg. 60 medical students without prior LLETZ experience and 10 gynecology residents with prior exposure were randomly assigned to train on either a commercial or the novel in-house simulator. Each participant performed five electrosurgical excisions. Performance was evaluated using LEEP scores, resection status (R0 resections), and blinded video assessments by two senior clinicians. Additionally, participants completed questionnaires, to capture subjective training impressions.
resultsThe in-house simulator demonstrated superior performance compared to the commercial model. When analyzed separately, changes in LEEP scores over the five attempts were statistically significant for both simulators. The effect size was larger for the in-house simulator (η
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the novel in-house 3D-printed simulator significantly outperformed the commercial model in objective surgical performance, learning progression and user satisfaction.
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.