CONTEXT: Interest in the use of simulators in urological skills training is on the increase. To ensure effective implementation of training models, an overview of the nature and validity of the available models is of the essence. OBJECTIVE: To obtain an overview of training models and their validity by performing a qualitative systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1980 and April 2008 using two search strategies: "urology and (training or simulat or model)" and combinations of these terms with "prostate," "kidney," "bladder," or "ureter." Studies were included if they (1) described one or more training models, and/or (2) examined the validity of training models. Studies in undergraduate education and of training models for physical examination were excluded. Validation studies were scored according to Kirkpatrick and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Forty-five articles (out of the initial list of 4753 retrieved articles, 0.9%) were included, describing 30 types of training models and 54 validation studies. The largest number of models has been described for ureterorenoscopy (nine types). Only three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), receiving a 1b OCEBM level of evidence score, were found. Studies investigating the impact of simulator training on performance in patients (criterion B validity) were scarce. The number of participants in experimental studies ranged from 7 to 136. CONCLUSIONS: Due to growing interest in training models in urology, it is increasingly urgent to determine which of these models are most valuable for postgraduate training. Because the validation studies published so far are few in number, have low evidence levels, and are composed of only a few RCTs, it is important that more randomised controlled validation studies including larger numbers of participants are performed.
CONTEXT: Interest in the use of simulators in urological skills training is on the increase. To ensure effective implementation of training models, an overview of the nature and validity of the available models is of the essence. OBJECTIVE: To obtain an overview of training models and their validity by performing a qualitative systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1980 and April 2008 using two search strategies: "urology and (training or simulat or model)" and combinations of these terms with "prostate," "kidney," "bladder," or "ureter." Studies were included if they (1) described one or more training models, and/or (2) examined the validity of training models. Studies in undergraduate education and of training models for physical examination were excluded. Validation studies were scored according to Kirkpatrick and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Forty-five articles (out of the initial list of 4753 retrieved articles, 0.9%) were included, describing 30 types of training models and 54 validation studies. The largest number of models has been described for ureterorenoscopy (nine types). Only three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), receiving a 1b OCEBM level of evidence score, were found. Studies investigating the impact of simulator training on performance in patients (criterion B validity) were scarce. The number of participants in experimental studies ranged from 7 to 136. CONCLUSIONS: Due to growing interest in training models in urology, it is increasingly urgent to determine which of these models are most valuable for postgraduate training. Because the validation studies published so far are few in number, have low evidence levels, and are composed of only a few RCTs, it is important that more randomised controlled validation studies including larger numbers of participants are performed.
Authors: Emre Huri; Andreas Skolarikos; İlkan Tatar; Murat Binbay; Mustafa Sofikerim; Emrah Yuruk; Tolga Karakan; Mustafa Sargon; Deniz Demiryurek; Roberto Miano; Murat Bagcioglu; Mehmet Ezer; Cecilia Maria Cracco; Cesare Marco Scoffone Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Federico Soria; Esther Morcillo; Juan Luis Sanz; Alberto Budia; Alvaro Serrano; Francisco M Sanchez-Margallo Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2014-10-02
Authors: José A Salvadó; Felipe Oyanedel; Sebastian Sepúlveda; Hernán Toledo; Álvaro Saavedra; Gaston Astroza; Lucas Consigliere Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Steven M Monda; Jonathan R Weese; Barrett G Anderson; Joel M Vetter; Ramakrishna Venkatesh; Kefu Du; Gerald L Andriole; Robert S Figenshau Journal: Urology Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 2.649