ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Face and content validation of laser enucleation of prostate simulation model: 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. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaser enucleation of the prostate (LEP) has become a standard treatment for benign prostatic obstruction, yet its adoption is limited by a steep learning curve and a lack of validated training models. This study aimed to evaluate the face and content validity of a bench-top simulator specifically developed for LEP training within the framework of the European School of Urology (ESU) Lower Urinary Tract Endoscopy Working Group.
methodsFourteen expert endourologists assessed the simulator during the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2025. Face and content validity were evaluated using 4-point Likert questionnaires, structured using the ESU validation framework. Descriptive statistics and content validity indices (I-CVI, S-CVI/Ave, S-CVI/UA) were calculated to assess agreement across anatomical, procedural, and educational domains.
resultsFace validity scores were high across all items (mean 3.57-3.86; ≥90% agreement). The overall S-CVI/Ave was 0.85 and S-CVI/UA 0.47. Domain-specific analysis showed strong content validity for procedural steps (S-CVI/Ave = 0.89) and educational/global domains (0.95), moderate validity for essential anatomy (0.81), and lower ratings for intraoperative conditions (0.69), primarily due to the absence of bleeding simulation. When restricted to core domains (procedural + educational), S-CVI/Ave improved to 0.91.
conclusionThe simulator demonstrated strong face and content validity. Expert ratings indicated favorable perceptions of its realism, procedural similarity, and educational utility. These findings suggest that the simulator may be a useful component of a structured transurethral procedural training curriculum, although further construct validation is needed.
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.