ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
SAFER: a simulation-based assessment tool for emergency robotic undocking with multisource validity evidence.
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
backgroundEmergency undocking is a high-acuity, low-occurrence event in robotic surgery. Existing robotic curricula do not address this skill, and no validated instrument has been developed to assess performance. We developed the Structured Approach for Fast Emergency Robotic-Undocking (SAFER), a simulation-based assessment tool, and hypothesized it would be reliable, responsive to educational intervention, and able to distinguish between trainee experience levels. We present multisource validity evidence.
methodsUsing a quasi-experimental design, 58 general surgery residents at a single academic institution completed two simulation assessment scenarios-hemorrhage and hemodynamic instability-at two timepoints 6 months apart. Each scenario was evaluated using a 9-item checklist and a global rating scale (maximum score 20 points), scored independently by two trained faculty raters. Between timepoints, participants received a structured teaching session and self-directed learning materials. Validity evidence was gathered across five domains: content, response process, internal structure, relationships to other variables, and consequences of testing. Psychometric analyses included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Cronbach's α, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95).
resultsInterrater reliability was excellent overall (ICC = 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and across both scenarios and timepoints. Internal consistency was acceptable to good (Cronbach's α = 0.72-0.83). The MDC95 was 2.5 points, with 72% of paired learners exceeding this threshold at the second assessment. Mean total score improved by 5.73 points (Cohen's d = 1.38), with largest gains among junior residents. Baseline scores increased significantly with postgraduate year (PGY) level [F(4,102) = 3.99, p = 0.005], supporting known-groups validity.
conclusionsSAFER, a novel assessment tool for robotic emergency undocking, demonstrated strong reliability, acceptable internal consistency, large responsiveness to training, and expected performance patterns across trainee levels. Further multicenter validation and transfer studies are needed before use in higher-stakes assessments, such as credentialing or advancement decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42768116What 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.