ArticleUrologia internationalis2026
Structured Feedback Tools in Surgical Training: Results of the Endo-Workshop of the German Society of Residents in Urology 2024.
Article in Urologia internationalis, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the need for structured feedback in urological residency training, we compared two assessment tools - Global Rating Scale (GRS) and Global Assessment of Urological Endoscopic Skills (GAUES) - during the 2024 Endo-Workshop of the German Society of Residents in Urology (GeSRU).
methodsThe workshop included simulation training on ureterorenoscopy (URS), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Feedback was provided using GRS and GAUES. An online survey assessed the need for structured feedback. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were used.
resultsAmong 15 participants, 53% were female, and 60% were early-stage residents. All expressed a desire for feedback, though only 73% had previously received unstructured feedback. Mean scores on GRS were 26 (URS), 28 (TURB), and 25 (TURP); on GAUES: 32, 37, and 33 (max 58). GRS and GAUES scores correlated positively (URS: ρ = 0.85; TURB: 0.5; TURP: 0.54). Post-workshop, 93% rated structured feedback as helpful. Most participants found GAUES (86%) and GRS (79%) specific and useful for training.
conclusionStructured assessments like GRS and GAUES show strong potential to improve endourological training. GAUES demonstrates value as a task-specific tool. Continuous evaluation of such tools is essential for high-quality surgical education and patient care.
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.