MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036966949 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318288c40b

State of the Evidence on Simulation-Based Training for Laparoscopic Surgery

2013· review· en· W2036966949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Laparoscopic surgeryLaparoscopySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: Summarize the outcomes and best practices of simulation training for laparoscopic surgery. Background: Simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery has become a mainstay of surgical training. Much new evidence has accrued since previous reviews were published. Methods: We systematically searched the literature through May 2011 for studies evaluating simulation, in comparison with no intervention or an alternate training activity, for training health professionals in laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes were classified as satisfaction, skills (in a test setting) of time (to perform the task), process (eg, performance rating), product (eg, knot strength), and behaviors when caring for patients. We used random effects to pool effect sizes. Results: From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 219 eligible studies enrolling 7138 trainees, including 91 (42%) randomized trials. For comparisons with no intervention (n = 151 studies), pooled effect size (ES) favored simulation for outcomes of knowledge (1.18; N = 9 studies), skills time (1.13; N = 89), skills process (1.23; N = 114), skills product (1.09; N = 7), behavior time (1.15; N = 7), behavior process (1.22; N = 15), and patient effects (1.28; N = 1), all P < 0.05. When compared with nonsimulation instruction (n = 3 studies), results significantly favored simulation for outcomes of skills time (ES, 0.75) and skills process (ES, 0.54). Comparisons between different simulation interventions (n = 79 studies) clarified best practices. For example, in comparison with virtual reality, box trainers have similar effects for process skills outcomes and seem to be superior for outcomes of satisfaction and skills time. Conclusions: Simulation-based laparoscopic surgery training of health professionals has large benefits when compared with no intervention and is moderately more effective than nonsimulation instruction. We appraised the literature to summarize the outcomes and describe best practices of simulation training for laparoscopic surgery. Results show that simulation-based training in laparoscopic surgery provides large benefits when compared with no intervention and moderate benefits in comparison with nonsimulation instruction. Box trainers appear comparable with virtual reality simulators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.748
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it