Mona Meral Savran1, Stine Maya Dreier Sørensen2, Lars Konge2, Martin G Tolsgaard3, Flemming Bjerrum4. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: mona_savran@hotmail.com. 2. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Nordsjaelland, Hillerod, Denmark. 4. Department of Gynecology, The Juliane Marie Centre for Children, Women and Reproduction, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies on hysteroscopic training and assessment. DESIGN: PubMed, Excerpta Medica, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched in January 2015. Manual screening of references and citation tracking were also performed. Studies on hysteroscopic educational interventions were selected without restrictions on study design, populations, language, or publication year. A qualitative data synthesis including the setting, study participants, training model, training characteristics, hysteroscopic skills, assessment parameters, and study outcomes was performed by 2 authors working independently. Effect sizes were calculated when possible. Overall, 2 raters independently evaluated sources of validity evidence supporting the outcomes of the hysteroscopy assessment tools. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies on hysteroscopy training were identified, of which 23 were performed in simulated settings. Overall, 10 studies used virtual-reality simulators and reported effect sizes for technical skills ranging from 0.31 to 2.65; 12 used inanimate models and reported effect sizes for technical skills ranging from 0.35 to 3.19. One study involved live animal models; 2 studies were performed in clinical settings. The validity evidence supporting the assessment tools used was low. Consensus between the 2 raters on the reported validity evidence was high (94%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated large variations in the effect of different tools for hysteroscopy training. The validity evidence supporting the assessment of hysteroscopic skills was limited.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies on hysteroscopic training and assessment. DESIGN: PubMed, Excerpta Medica, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched in January 2015. Manual screening of references and citation tracking were also performed. Studies on hysteroscopic educational interventions were selected without restrictions on study design, populations, language, or publication year. A qualitative data synthesis including the setting, study participants, training model, training characteristics, hysteroscopic skills, assessment parameters, and study outcomes was performed by 2 authors working independently. Effect sizes were calculated when possible. Overall, 2 raters independently evaluated sources of validity evidence supporting the outcomes of the hysteroscopy assessment tools. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies on hysteroscopy training were identified, of which 23 were performed in simulated settings. Overall, 10 studies used virtual-reality simulators and reported effect sizes for technical skills ranging from 0.31 to 2.65; 12 used inanimate models and reported effect sizes for technical skills ranging from 0.35 to 3.19. One study involved live animal models; 2 studies were performed in clinical settings. The validity evidence supporting the assessment tools used was low. Consensus between the 2 raters on the reported validity evidence was high (94%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated large variations in the effect of different tools for hysteroscopy training. The validity evidence supporting the assessment of hysteroscopic skills was limited.
Authors: Mona M Savran; Anders Bo Nielsen; Bente Baekholm Poulsen; Poul Bak Thorsen; Lars Konge Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Malcolm G Munro; Arnold P Advincula; Erika H Banks; Tamika C Auguste; E Britton Chahine; Chi Chiung Grace Chen; Howard L Curlin; Elisa M Jorgensen; Jin Hee Kim; Cara R King; Joelle Lucas; Magdy P Milad; Jamal Mourad; Matthew T Siedhoff; M Jonathon Solnik; Christopher C Destephano; Kim Thayn Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 7.623