ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopy training under the SIMPL lens: insights on resident competency and autonomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite required simulation training and Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery certification, concerns remain about endoscopic competency among graduating general surgery residents. No prior study has directly evaluated resident endoscopic performance in clinical practice. Using the Society for Improving Medical Professional Learning (SIMPL) database, this study assesses general surgery resident competency and autonomy in colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy/proctoscopy.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the SIMPL database was conducted for general surgery residents completing endoscopic procedures between January 2015 and August 2025. Faculty-rated performance was dichotomized as competent (practice-ready/exceptional) versus not competent (unprepared/inexperienced/intermediate performance) and resident autonomy was dichotomized as meaningful (passive help/supervision only) versus not meaningful (show and tell/active help). Descriptive statistics on performance and autonomy were evaluated, including agreement between resident and faculty evaluations. Logistic regression was used to assess resident performance and autonomy according to training year, with case complexity as a covariate.
resultsA total of 3,325 cases were evaluated, consisting of 2,696 colonoscopies, 364 upper endoscopies, and 265 sigmoidoscopies/proctoscopies. Faculty observed competent performance in 35.3% of colonoscopies, 50.0% of upper endoscopies, and 42.3% of sigmoidoscopies/proctoscopies. Faculty observed meaningful autonomy in 60.7% of colonoscopies, 68.9% of upper endoscopies, and 59.2% of sigmoidoscopies/proctoscopies. The likelihoods of achieving competency and meaningful autonomy in the most complex colonoscopies were 23.6% and 40.8%, respectively. At the chief resident level, faculty observed competency in 70.6% of colonoscopies, 89.5% of upper endoscopies, and 87.3% of sigmoidoscopies/proctoscopies.
conclusionsNearly one-third of colonoscopies performed by chief residents did not meet practice-ready competency standards, representing the most concerning finding of this study. Performance was even lower for complex cases, with fewer than one-quarter achieving competency and less than half demonstrating meaningful autonomy. Together, these findings highlight gaps in current training pathways and underscore the need to strengthen endoscopy education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42286181What 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.