ArticleBMC medical education2026
Student perceptions of technology-enhanced simulation resources in laparoscopic training: a scoping review and implications for surgical instrumentation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic training increasingly uses technology-enhanced simulation resources, including virtual reality, augmented reality, box trainers, portable trainers and digital surgical curricula. In this review, these resources are analysed as technology-enhanced simulation resources rather than as uniformly "emerging" technologies, because some tools, particularly box trainers, are established components of laparoscopic education. Direct evidence for Surgical Instrumentation students remains limited, making transferability from other health-professions learners a central interpretive issue.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR and JBI guidance. The review question was structured using the PCC framework: population, health sciences and surgical training students; concept, perceptions, attitudes, satisfaction, confidence, self-efficacy, acceptance and perceived usefulness; and context, laparoscopic surgery education. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Redalyc and Google Scholar were searched for English- or Spanish-language publications from January 2020 to March 2025. Findings were charted and synthesized narratively rather than pooled statistically.
resultsA total of 1,800 records were identified in the retained review flow. Fifty-seven full-text reports were assessed, and 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most learner-facing studies that evaluated perception, satisfaction, acceptance, confidence or self-efficacy reported favorable responses, mainly related to confidence, satisfaction, perceived safety, self-efficacy and opportunities for repeated practice. The included evidence was heterogeneous and relied substantially on subjective measures. Only one study directly addressed Surgical Instrumentation students.
conclusionsTechnology-enhanced simulation resources appear acceptable to learners in laparoscopic training, but positive perception should not be equated with competence, clinical readiness or transfer of learning. The educational value of these resources depends on structured pedagogy, feedback, faculty development, access, sustainability and objective assessment. Because direct evidence in Surgical Instrumentation is limited to one included study, the implications should be interpreted as transferability hypotheses and priorities for future research rather than definitive curriculum recommendations.
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.