Ebrahim Adnan Patel1, Abdullatif Aydın2, Ashish Desai3, Prokar Dasgupta1, Kamran Ahmed1. 1. MRC Centre for Transplantation, Guy's Hospital, 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. Dept. of Paediatric Surgery, King's College London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation based training enables pediatric surgical trainees to attain proficiency in surgical skills. This study aims to identify the currently available simulators for pediatric surgery, assess their validation and strength of evidence supporting each model. METHODS: Both Medline and EMBASE were searched for English language articles either describing or validating simulation models for pediatric surgery. A level of evidence (LoE) followed by a level of recommendation (LoR) was assigned to each validation study and simulator, based on a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification for educational studies. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were identified describing 44 training models and courses. Of these articles, 44 were validation studies. Face validity was evaluated by 20 studies, 28 for content, 24 demonstrated construct validity and 1 showed predictive validity. Of the validated models, 3 were given an LoR of 2, 21 an LoR of 3 and 12 an LoR of 4. None reached the highest LoR. CONCLUSIONS: There are a growing number of simulators specific to pediatric surgery. However, these simulators have limited LoE and LoR in current studies. The lack of NoTSS training is also apparent. We advocate more randomized trials to validate these models, and attempts to determine predictive validity. TYPE OF STUDY: Original / systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
BACKGROUND: Simulation based training enables pediatric surgical trainees to attain proficiency in surgical skills. This study aims to identify the currently available simulators for pediatric surgery, assess their validation and strength of evidence supporting each model. METHODS: Both Medline and EMBASE were searched for English language articles either describing or validating simulation models for pediatric surgery. A level of evidence (LoE) followed by a level of recommendation (LoR) was assigned to each validation study and simulator, based on a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification for educational studies. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were identified describing 44 training models and courses. Of these articles, 44 were validation studies. Face validity was evaluated by 20 studies, 28 for content, 24 demonstrated construct validity and 1 showed predictive validity. Of the validated models, 3 were given an LoR of 2, 21 an LoR of 3 and 12 an LoR of 4. None reached the highest LoR. CONCLUSIONS: There are a growing number of simulators specific to pediatric surgery. However, these simulators have limited LoE and LoR in current studies. The lack of NoTSS training is also apparent. We advocate more randomized trials to validate these models, and attempts to determine predictive validity. TYPE OF STUDY: Original / systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Authors: Francesca Palmisani; Patrick Sezen; Elisabeth Haag; Martin L Metzelder; Wilfried Krois Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Jonathan J Neville; Carmen S Chacon; Reza Haghighi-Osgouei; Natasha Houghton; Fernando Bello; Simon A Clarke Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Péter Etlinger; Catarina Barroso; Alice Miranda; João Moreira Pinto; Ruben Lamas-Pinheiro; Hélder Ferreira; Pedro Leão; Tamás Kovács; László Juhász; László Sasi Szabó; András Farkas; Péter Vajda; Attila Kálmán; Tibor Géczi; Zsolt Simonka; Tamás Cserni; Miklós Nógrády; Gergely H Fodor; Andrea Szabó; Jorge Correia-Pinto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584