ReviewCureus2026
Real-Time Intelligent Coaching Versus Human Expert Instruction in Surgical Skills Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-time intelligent coaching systems are technology-based surgical training tools that provide automated, real-time, and objective feedback on learners' performance during simulated surgical tasks. Unlike human expert instruction, which relies on instructor-delivered guidance and feedback, these systems use automated performance monitoring to provide immediate feedback on aspects such as accuracy, motion economy, and errors. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of real-time intelligent coaching systems compared with human expert training in surgical skill instruction, with technical surgical performance as the primary outcome and cognitive load and emotional outcomes as secondary outcomes. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ScienceDirect through March 2026. We considered randomized controlled trials including medical students with no prior surgical experience. We measured outcomes using the Intelligent Continuous Expertise Monitoring System (ICEMS) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores, emotional responses, and cognitive load. We included three randomized controlled trials involving 281 participants. No statistically significant differences were observed between real-time intelligent coaching systems and human expert instruction in technical performance, as measured by ICEMS and OSATS scores; however, the ICEMS analysis showed very high heterogeneity (I² = 99%), and only two trials reported technical outcomes. Real-time intelligent coaching systems were associated with a small reduction in overall cognitive load compared with human expert instruction, with the intrinsic cognitive load domain also favoring real-time intelligent coaching systems. No significant differences were observed in positive activating or negative activating emotions, whereas positive deactivating emotions were modestly higher with real-time intelligent coaching systems. Given the small number of studies, limited sample sizes, and substantial heterogeneity, interpret the findings cautiously. Current evidence suggests that real-time intelligent coaching systems may provide technical performance similar to human expert instruction and may offer some cognitive benefits, but further well-designed, adequately powered trials are needed to establish their effectiveness and role in surgical education.
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.