ArticleCureus2026
Seeing the Unseen: Illustrated Reflection as a Tool for Risk Awareness in Surgical Training.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transition from theoretical knowledge to operative performance represents a pivotal stage in surgical training. Although trainees may accurately reproduce the visible technical steps demonstrated by supervisors, the underlying operative reasoning and risk anticipation are not always explicitly conveyed. Decisions regarding dissection planes, energy application, and tissue handling often reflect implicit experience-based judgment. This gap between observable action and internal reasoning may limit the development of independent surgical thinking and increase the likelihood of preventable technical errors during early operative training. This technical report proposes drawing as an active reflective tool to enhance risk awareness in surgical education. Using mesoappendix division during laparoscopic appendectomy as an illustrative example, the PRAI (Purpose-Risk-Approach-Illustration) framework is introduced to guide structured stepwise reflection. Through simplified anatomical reconstruction, trainees identify essential structures, delineate risk zones, and clarify the relationship between operative objectives and technical strategy. Drawing in this context functions not merely as a visual aid but as a cognitive process that transforms operative experience into structured spatial understanding. By reconstructing operative steps through illustration, trainees may strengthen spatial orientation, anticipate complications more effectively, and transition from imitative performance toward analytical reasoning. Importantly, illustrated reflection is not intended to replace established reflective practices such as operative debriefing, operative note review, or cognitive task analysis, but rather to serve as a complementary structured reflective tool. Drawing may also create cognitive "memory anchors" that facilitate spatial encoding and retention. Future research may evaluate its educational impact using established assessment tools, including Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) domains such as respect for tissue, instrument handling, and procedural flow; structured surgical error taxonomies (e.g., incorrect dissection plane or inappropriate energy use); near-miss event documentation such as bleeding from premature vessel division or potential thermal injury to adjacent bowel; time to identification of critical anatomical structures (e.g., the appendiceal artery); and cognitive workload scales such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Such metrics may allow quantitative evaluation of whether illustrated reflection improves operative judgment and technical safety.
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.