ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Can surgery fellows accurately self-assess their technical performance? Analysis of the Fellowship Council EPAs.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-assessment accuracy is crucial for self-improvement and continuing professional development, and is integral to formative evaluations in EPA-based surgical education. Accuracy of self-assessment among surgical trainees is mixed, and no studies have focused specifically on fellows completing EPA-based surgical training.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of clinical fellows completing an Advanced GI MIS & Bariatric Fellowships through the Fellowship Council in 2023-2024 was performed comparing self-assessment entrustment levels with those given by faculty (fellow-faculty dyads). The significance of the difference between dyads was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess association. A Generalized Estimating Equation was used to assess changes in accuracy for increasing caseloads and time. Dyads differing by two units or greater were assessed for case number and chronology.
results45 fellows with a combined 584 dyads were analyzed. The mean EPA entrustment level provided by fellows was 2.98 ± 0.86, with a median = 3 [IQR 2-4], while the mean entrustment level from faculty was 3.28 ± 0.80, with a median = 3 [IQR 3-4]. The difference between fellow and faculty entrustment levels was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, z = 8.09, p < 0.001), proving fellow stringency, while there was a moderate, positive association between faculty and fellows, r(584) = .465, p < 0.001. Accuracy improved with both case load and time. Fellows only assigned themselves level 2 units or higher than faculty in 1.7% of encounters.
conclusionsFellows in our study were accurate, though more stringent, self-assessors, with improvement of accuracy with case load and time. Fellows who overrate their performances may benefit from targeted interventions. Information gleaned through this study is crucial as we continue to operationalize CBME and to help with targeted education initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42754626What 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.