MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086321319 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318207a789

Mental Practice Enhances Surgical Technical Skills

2011· article· en· W2086321319 on OpenAlexaff
Sonal Arora, Rajesh Aggarwal, Pramudith Sirimanna, Aidan Moran, Teodor Grantcharov, Roger Kneebone, Nick Sevdalis, Ara Darzi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)Randomized controlled trialMental healthMedical educationPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of mental practice on surgical performance. BACKGROUND: Increasing concerns for patient safety have highlighted a need for alternative training strategies outside the operating room. Mental practice (MP), "the cognitive rehearsal of a task before performance," has been successful in sport and music to enhance skill. This study investigates whether MP enhances performance in laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After baseline skills testing, 20 novice surgeons underwent training on an evidence-based virtual reality curriculum. After randomization using the closed envelope technique, all participants performed 5 Virtual Reality (VR) laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC). Mental practice participants performed 30 minutes of MP before each LC; control participants viewed an online lecture. Technical performance was assessed using video Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills-based global ratings scale (scored from 7 to 35). Mental imagery was assessed using a previously validated Mental Imagery Questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighteen participants completed the study. There were no intergroup differences in baseline technical ability. Learning curves were demonstrated for both MP and control groups. Mental practice was superior to control (global ratings) for the first LC (median 20 vs 15, P = 0.005), second LC (20.5 vs 13.5, P = 0.001), third LC (24 vs 15.5, P < 0.001), fourth LC (25.5 vs 15.5, P < 0.001) and the fifth LC (27.5 vs 19.5, P = 0.00). The imagery for the MP group was also significantly superior to the control group across all sessions (P < 0.05). Improved imagery significantly correlated with better quality of performance (ρ 0.51–0.62, Ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled study to show that MP enhances the quality of performance based on VR laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This may be a time- and cost-effective strategy to augment traditional training in the OR thus potentially improving patient care.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations258
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207