Trial reportJournal of robotic surgery2026
Randomized double-blind protocol for cross-specialty competency assessment in robotic surgery training using GEARS: a single-center initial validation study.
Trial report in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Between Video-Derived Digital Operative Metrics and GEARS Scores in Robotic Surgery and Development of an Exploratory Multivariable Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
This study aims to evaluate the discriminatory validity of a randomized, double-blind evaluation protocol based on the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) scoring system for cross-specialty competency assessment during robotic surgery training. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind evaluation protocol at a single robotic training center. 49 surgical trainees (17 general surgery, 16 urology, 16 gynecology) with no prior robotic experience completed a 3-week training program-7 days of intensive simulator (dV-Trainer) and porcine-model procedures, followed by 2 weeks of clinical observation. All operation videos were anonymized and randomly assigned to 7 blinded expert reviewers per session, selected from a 12-member panel. To calibrate scoring and detect bias, 17 expert-generated videos were randomly interspersed as internal controls. Validity and inter-scenario consistency were assessed using factor analysis, Cronbach's α, and the Bland-Altman method. The GEARS-based assessment protocol under the randomized double-blind design demonstrated good validity (KMO = 0.836, cumulative variance 85%) and reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.765), effectively distinguishing trainees from experts in simulator and live tissue operations (p < 0.05). The Mscore-Sim correlated significantly with the GEARS dimensions (R²=0.563); the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-2.1-3.8) validated cross-modal scoring consistency. Subgroup analysis revealed the system's stability across specialties (Δ < 0.4), training robot models (Δ < 0.2), and sexes (p > 0.05). Compared to younger trainees, older trainees showed no difference in live tissue performance, suggesting a compensatory effect of experience. The scoring system objectively differentiates operational abilities of trainees across specialties, demonstrating its potential as a standardized assessment tool for heterogeneous robotic surgery training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474855What 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.