Ann Sofia S Thomsen1, Yousif Subhi2, Jens Folke Kiilgaard3, Morten la Cour3, Lars Konge2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark; Centre for Clinical Education, Centre for HR, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: skouthomsen@dadlnet.dk. 2. Centre for Clinical Education, Centre for HR, Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark.
Abstract
TOPIC: This study reviews the evidence behind simulation-based surgical training of ophthalmologists to determine (1) the validity of the reported models and (2) the ability to transfer skills to the operating room. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Simulation-based training is established widely within ophthalmology, although it often lacks a scientific basis for implementation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of trials involving simulation-based training or assessment of ophthalmic surgical skills among health professionals. The search included 5 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) and was completed on March 1, 2014. Overall, the included trials were divided into animal, cadaver, inanimate, and virtual-reality models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Validity evidence was evaluated using a modern validity framework (Messick's). RESULTS: We screened 1368 reports for eligibility and included 118 trials. The most common surgery simulated was cataract surgery. Most validity trials investigated only 1 or 2 of 5 sources of validity (87%). Only 2 trials (48 participants) investigated transfer of skills to the operating room; 4 trials (65 participants) evaluated the effect of simulation-based training on patient-related outcomes. Because of heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to conduct a quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic rigor of trials investigating simulation-based surgical training in ophthalmology is inadequate. To ensure effective implementation of training models, evidence-based knowledge of validity and efficacy is needed. We provide a useful tool for implementation and evaluation of research in simulation-based training.
TOPIC: This study reviews the evidence behind simulation-based surgical training of ophthalmologists to determine (1) the validity of the reported models and (2) the ability to transfer skills to the operating room. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Simulation-based training is established widely within ophthalmology, although it often lacks a scientific basis for implementation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of trials involving simulation-based training or assessment of ophthalmic surgical skills among health professionals. The search included 5 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) and was completed on March 1, 2014. Overall, the included trials were divided into animal, cadaver, inanimate, and virtual-reality models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Validity evidence was evaluated using a modern validity framework (Messick's). RESULTS: We screened 1368 reports for eligibility and included 118 trials. The most common surgery simulated was cataract surgery. Most validity trials investigated only 1 or 2 of 5 sources of validity (87%). Only 2 trials (48 participants) investigated transfer of skills to the operating room; 4 trials (65 participants) evaluated the effect of simulation-based training on patient-related outcomes. Because of heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to conduct a quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic rigor of trials investigating simulation-based surgical training in ophthalmology is inadequate. To ensure effective implementation of training models, evidence-based knowledge of validity and efficacy is needed. We provide a useful tool for implementation and evaluation of research in simulation-based training.
Authors: Daniel Shu Wei Ting; Shaun Sebastian Khung Peng Sim; Christine Wen Leng Yau; Mohamad Rosman; Ai Tee Aw; Ian Yew San Yeo Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Morten la Cour; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Mark Alberti; Lars Konge Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Nanna Jo Borgersen; Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Lars Konge; Torben Lykke Sørensen; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Yousif Subhi Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2016-08-16