ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
External validity of task-specific metrics for performance assessment in laparoscopic crural repair.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is a common foregut procedure, yet high-fidelity simulation tools for training and assessment remain limited. Previously, task-specific metrics (TSMs) were developed and validated at a single institution to evaluate performance during simulated laparoscopic crural repair. This study assessed the external validity and reliability of these TSMs using a broader, international cohort.
methodsParticipants at the 2024 SAGES Education and Innovation Center performed a simulated laparoscopic crural repair using an inanimate silicone model housed in a standard laparoscopic trainer box. Demographic data and surgical experience were collected via pre-survey. Performances were video-recorded and independently assessed by three blinded raters using both the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and TSMs. Participants were stratified into novice (PGY1-2) or experienced (PGY3-5, fellows, attendings). Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Performance comparisons were analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Linear regression modeled training level as an ordered predictor, adjusting for simulation exposure. Correlation between OSATS and TSM scores was measured using Spearman's rank correlation.
resultsThirty-three participants were enrolled; 30 completed the task (attendings: 9; fellows: 3; PGY1-5: 18). 22 were U.S.-trained and 8 internationally trained. Inter-rater reliability was high for both scoring methods (ICC = 0.85; p < 0.001). Experienced participants scored significantly higher than novices on both OSATS (20 vs. 14; p = 0.039) and TSMs (39 vs. 18.5; p = 0.02). In adjusted models, robotic simulation training was independently associated with higher OSATS (β = 4.67, p = 0.021) and TSM scores (β = 15.01, p = 0.024). TSM and OSATS scores were strongly correlated (R = 0.88; p < 0.001).
conclusionsTSMs demonstrated strong external validity and reliability, effectively discriminating between experience levels and supporting their use as standardized assessment tool in surgical education and global training programs.
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.