ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Face and content validation of TURP and TURB simulation models: an EAU European School of Urology (ESU) Lower Urinary Tract Endoscopy Working Group Study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the educational validity of two bench-top simulators for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) and Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURB), focusing on their realism, ergonomics, and relevance for structured endourology training. MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen expert endourologists from multiple European centers assessed both simulators during the European Association of Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2025. Face validity and content validity were evaluated using 4-point Likert questionnaires. Item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI/Ave) content validity indices were calculated for all items and adjusted for core procedural skills.
resultsExperts rated both simulators highly for anatomical realism, tissue handling, and overall utility (mean scores > 3.5/4). The TURP simulator achieved an adjusted S-CVI/Ave of 0.92 and the TURB simulator 0.97, indicating excellent consensus on their educational adequacy for key procedural steps. Non-modeled features such as bleeding, obturator reflex, and energy modulation received low ratings, reflecting inherent limitations of bench-top simulation. Both models were considered effective for practicing instrument handling and resection depth control in a risk-free, standardized environment.
conclusionsThe TURP and TURB simulators demonstrated strong face and content validity for core resection training. Their modular, non-biological, and reproducible design supports safe, structured skill acquisition and competency assessment in endourology curricula, offering a practical bridge between theoretical learning and clinical performance.
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.