Valerio Celentano1,2, Neil Smart3, Ronan A Cahill4,5, Antonino Spinelli6,7, Mariano Cesare Giglio8, John McGrath9,10, Andreas Obermair11,12, Gianluca Pellino13, Hirotoshi Hasegawa14, Pawanindra Lal15,16, Laura Lorenzon17, Nicola De Angelis18, Luigi Boni19,20, Sharmila Gupta21, John P Griffith22, Austin G Acheson23, Tom D Cecil24, Mark G Coleman25,26. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. valeriocelentano@yahoo.it. 2. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. valeriocelentano@yahoo.it. 3. Exeter Health Services, Research Unit, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK. 4. Colorectal Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Section of Surgery and Surgical Specialities, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 6. Humanitas Clinical Research Center - IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. 8. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 9. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK. 10. University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. 11. Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer, Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 12. Faculty of Medicine, UQCCR, The University of Queensland, Herston, Brisbane, Australia. 13. Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Ageing Sciences, Luigi Vanvitelli University, Naples, Italy. 14. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital, Ichikawa City, Japan. 15. Maulana Azad Medical College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. 16. Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India. 17. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 18. Unit of Digestive and HPB Surgery, CARE Department, Henri Mondor Hospital and University Paris-Est, Creteil, France. 19. Department of General and Emergency Surgery, IRCCS, Fondazione Ca' GrandaPoliclinico Hospital, Milan, Italy. 20. University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 21. Colchester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, UK. 22. Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK. 23. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 24. Peritoneal Malignancy Institute, Basingstoke, UK. 25. Peninsula School of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK. 26. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been a constant increase in the number of published surgical videos with preference for open-access sources, but the proportion of videos undergoing peer-review prior to publication has markedly decreased, raising questions over quality of the educational content presented. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a standard framework for the appraisal of surgical videos submitted for presentation and publication, the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. METHODS: An international committee identified items for inclusion in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool and finalised the marking score utilising Delphi methodology. The tool was finally validated by anonymous evaluation of selected videos by a group of validators not involved in the tool development. RESULTS: 9 items were included in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool, with every item scoring from 0 (item not presented in the video) to 2 (item extensively presented in the video), with a total marking score ranging from 0 to 18. The LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool resulted highly accurate in identifying and selecting videos for acceptance for conference presentation and publication, with high level of internal consistency and generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that peer review in adherence to the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool could enhance the overall quality of published video outputs.
INTRODUCTION: There has been a constant increase in the number of published surgical videos with preference for open-access sources, but the proportion of videos undergoing peer-review prior to publication has markedly decreased, raising questions over quality of the educational content presented. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a standard framework for the appraisal of surgical videos submitted for presentation and publication, the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. METHODS: An international committee identified items for inclusion in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool and finalised the marking score utilising Delphi methodology. The tool was finally validated by anonymous evaluation of selected videos by a group of validators not involved in the tool development. RESULTS: 9 items were included in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool, with every item scoring from 0 (item not presented in the video) to 2 (item extensively presented in the video), with a total marking score ranging from 0 to 18. The LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool resulted highly accurate in identifying and selecting videos for acceptance for conference presentation and publication, with high level of internal consistency and generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that peer review in adherence to the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool could enhance the overall quality of published video outputs.