ReviewUpdates in surgery2026
European surgical residency training: a scoping review of operative exposure, assessment, wellbeing, and practice readiness.
Review in Updates in surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
European surgical training is delivered within heterogeneous regulatory and institutional arrangements, with consequences for how operative exposure, assessment, wellbeing, and readiness for independent practice are organised, measured, and reported. We aimed to describe and map the European empirical literature on these four domains and to identify conceptual, geographic, and methodological gaps that limit cross-national comparability. The primary purpose was descriptive evidence mapping; any implications for practice or policy are framed as hypothesis-generating rather than as evaluations of training systems or as a proposed European framework. We conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported it per the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to March 2026. Two independent reviewers screened records in two stages and assessed full texts. All included studies were dual-coded on five variables (domain coverage, explicit construct definition, validated-instrument use, cross-domain analysis, theory engagement); inter-rater agreement was quantified with Cohen's κ. Detailed 22-field charting was performed on a purposively selected subset using a maximum-variation strategy. Of 21,727 deduplicated records screened, 533 studies were included, spanning 32 countries. Five national literatures contributed the bulk of evidence - the United Kingdom (n = 271, 50.8%), France (108, 20.3%), Germany (102, 19.1%), Ireland (77, 14.4%), and Italy (72, 13.5%); multinational studies were tagged to each contributing country, so country counts overlap. Cross-sectional designs predominated. Assessment was the most frequently addressed domain (291, 54.6%), followed by wellbeing (176, 33.0%), operative exposure (134, 25.1%), and practice readiness (15, 2.8%). Inter-rater agreement was substantial (Cohen κ = 0.71). Explicit construct definition (2.8%) and named theory (3.6%) were uncommon; validated-instrument use was 11.1% overall (20.5% within wellbeing); 13.3% examined cross-domain relationships. European surgical training research is substantial, but its measurement architecture remains underdeveloped: the field largely measures what is easy to count, while autonomy, entrustment, and integrated wellbeing assessment remain under-operationalised. A shared minimum dataset linking validated operative-autonomy and entrustment indicators with progression and wellbeing outcomes is a precondition for cross-national comparability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334810What 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.