Michael Morgan1, Abdullatif Aydin2, Alan Salih3, Shibby Robati3, Kamran Ahmed4. 1. School of Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: abdullatif.aydin@kcl.ac.uk. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Eastbourne, United Kingdom. 4. MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of orthopedic training and assessment simulators with reference to their level of evidence (LoE) and level of recommendation. DESIGN: Medline and EMBASE library databases were searched for English language articles published between 1980 and 2016, describing orthopedic simulators or validation studies of these models. All studies were assessed for LoE, and each model was subsequently awarded a level of recommendation using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, adapted for education. RESULTS: A total of 76 articles describing orthopedic simulators met the inclusion criteria, 47 of which described at least 1 validation study. The most commonly identified models (n = 34) and validation studies (n = 26) were for knee arthroscopy. Construct validation was the most frequent validation study attempted by authors. In all, 62% (47 of 76) of the simulator studies described arthroscopy simulators, which also contained validation studies with the highest LoE. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic simulators are increasingly being subjected to validation studies, although the LoE of such studies generally remain low. There remains a lack of focus on nontechnical skills and on cost analyses of orthopedic simulators.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of orthopedic training and assessment simulators with reference to their level of evidence (LoE) and level of recommendation. DESIGN: Medline and EMBASE library databases were searched for English language articles published between 1980 and 2016, describing orthopedic simulators or validation studies of these models. All studies were assessed for LoE, and each model was subsequently awarded a level of recommendation using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, adapted for education. RESULTS: A total of 76 articles describing orthopedic simulators met the inclusion criteria, 47 of which described at least 1 validation study. The most commonly identified models (n = 34) and validation studies (n = 26) were for knee arthroscopy. Construct validation was the most frequent validation study attempted by authors. In all, 62% (47 of 76) of the simulator studies described arthroscopy simulators, which also contained validation studies with the highest LoE. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic simulators are increasingly being subjected to validation studies, although the LoE of such studies generally remain low. There remains a lack of focus on nontechnical skills and on cost analyses of orthopedic simulators.
Keywords:
Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Patient Care; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; orthopedic surgery; simulation; systematic review; training
Authors: David Putzer; Dietmar Dammerer; Martina Baldauf; Florian Lenze; Michael C Liebensteiner; Michael Nogler Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 1.785
Authors: Sara Condino; Giuseppe Turini; Paolo D Parchi; Rosanna M Viglialoro; Nicola Piolanti; Marco Gesi; Mauro Ferrari; Vincenzo Ferrari Journal: J Healthc Eng Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.682