ArticleBMC medical education2026
A feasibility and preliminary effectiveness study of a tiered gynecological laparoscopic training curriculum in southwestern China.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEssential yet deficient gynecological laparoscopy training in China demands urgent structured solutions. This study aimed to develop and preliminarily evaluate a specialized laparoscopic surgical training curriculum for enhancing surgical skills among gynecologists.
methodsOur laparoscopic training program ran from September 2022 to December 2025 and comprised three phases. Phase I developed a laparoscopic skills curriculum through needs assessment, hierarchical task analysis, and expert panel consensus. Phase II surveyed 112 participants (junior, intermediate, and senior groups) using Likert-scale and ranking questions to evaluate satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. Phase III conducted pre-/post-training assessments of pattern cutting and suturing tasks in 37 participants, analyzing relationships to external variables. We employed the Shapiro-Wilk test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and paired samples t-test for statistical analyses (significance: P < 0.05).
resultsA total of 112 trainees were enrolled and divided into junior (n = 34), intermediate (n = 47), and senior (n = 31) groups. Overall training satisfaction was high and comparable among groups across most dimensions, except that prior laparoscopic training experience was associated with greater satisfaction regarding training productivity. Trainees showed significant post-training improvements in self-assessed laparoscopic skills, including hand-eye coordination, bimanual dexterity, energy device use, and suturing (all P < 0.001). Perfused organ modules were the most preferred training component overall, with notable level-stratified differences: seniors favored perfused and ex vivo organs, intermediates preferred perfused organs and box-trainers, whereas juniors prioritized box-trainers and theoretical instruction. Post-training objective assessments (n = 37) revealed significantly reduced operation time in pattern cutting and suturing tasks, as well as improved suturing quality (all P < 0.05). Multivariate regression showed that improvements in suturing skills were not significantly associated with age, seniority, or previous training history.
conclusionsTraining preferences differed by proficiency level: juniors preferred theory and simulators, whereas intermediate and senior trainees favored perfused and ex vivo practice. This stratified model is feasible and effective for standardized laparoscopic training.
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.