ReviewO&G open2026
Teaching Vaginal Surgery Through Simulation.
Review in O&G open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the volume of vaginal surgery declines, residents have fewer opportunities to learn, and training programs are incorporating simulation into their curricula to address this deficiency. We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on simulation training for gynecologic vaginal surgical procedures. Data were extracted from each study on the following parameters: model or assessment tool description, study objectives, target skill level, learning objectives, intervention, aims of the study, study outcomes, performance metrics, performance cutoff scores, simulator assessments, Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument scores, and implementation factors. The literature search resulted in 5,560 articles. After deduplication, 3,140 titles were selected for review; of these, 2,953 titles were excluded, and 187 were selected for possible inclusion. Of the 41 included studies, 20 articles were relevant to vaginal hysterectomy training, two investigated assessment tools for vaginal surgical performance, 12 were relevant to prolapse surgery, six were relevant to incontinence sling surgical simulation, and one was relevant to vesicovaginal fistula repair. Simulation fidelity, complexity, cost, and evidence of educational effectiveness varied considerably across studies. Only a handful of studies reported proficiency cutoff scores or robust validity evidence. Practical considerations such as ease of use and accessibility were frequently addressed, but few studies evaluated the transfer of skills to the operating room or the effect of simulation training on patient outcomes. The available literature demonstrates both innovation and significant heterogeneity in educational methodology, assessment, and validity. Our narrative review summarizes and highlights information that surgical educators need on the ground to implement simulation training in vaginal surgery skills. Further research is needed to develop standardized assessment tools, to improve validity, and to evaluate the real-world translation of simulation to surgical competency and patient care.
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.