ArticleBMC medical education2026
The learning curve of a high-fidelity cataract surgical simulator.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the number of iterations required to reach a performance plateau for each module on the HelpMeSee MSICS high‑fidelity cataract surgical simulator, and to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the assessment rubric and the consistency of the simulator's visuo-haptic feedback.
methodsTwenty medical students (Group A) and 12 residents (Group B) were recruited. All participants performed 10 iterations on five modules of the HelpMeSee MSICS high-fidelity surgical simulator. All operation videos were recorded and scored by two observers using the simulator assessment rubric. Intraclass correlation coefficient, Friedman test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate inter-rater reliability, intra-module learning curves, and inter-group differences, respectively.
resultsLearning curves were demonstrated in both groups across all five modules and total score (all P < 0.01). Residents achieved higher initial performance and reached performance plateaus earlier than students. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for all modules and total score (ICC > 0.80, all P < 0.05).
conclusionMedical students and residents without independent cataract surgery experience improved and reached performance plateaus on the simulator through repeated practice, suggesting that the simulator provided consistent visuo-haptic feedback conducive to initial skill acquisition. However, these simulator-based improvements did not directly translate to improved real-life surgical performance and required separate validation through clinical outcome studies.
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.