Elio Mazzone1,2, Stefano Puliatti2,3,4, Marco Amato2,3,4, Brendan Bunting5, Bernardo Rocco4, Francesco Montorsi1, Alexandre Mottrie2,3, Anthony G Gallagher2,5,6. 1. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 2. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium. 3. Department of Urology, OLV, Aalst, Belgium. 4. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 5. School of Medicine, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, Ulster University, Northern Ireland, UK. 6. Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze all published prospective, randomized, and blinded clinical studies on the proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using objective performance metrics. BACKGROUND: The benefit of PBP methodology to learning clinical skills in comparison to conventional training is not settled. METHODS: Search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from inception to 1st March 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results were pooled using biased corrected standardized mean difference and ratio-of-means. Summary effects were evaluated using a series of fixed and random effects models. The primary outcome was the number of procedural errors performed comparing PBP and non-PBP-based training pathways. Secondary outcomes were the number of procedural steps completed and the time to complete the task/procedure. RESULTS: From the initial pool of 468 studies, 12 randomized clinical studies with a total of 239 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the non-PBP training, ratio-of-means results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 60% (P < 0.001) and procedural time by 15% (P = 0.003) and increased the number of steps performed by 47% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that PBP training in comparison to conventional or quality assured training improved trainees' performances, by decreasing procedural errors and procedural time, while increasing the number of correct steps taken when compared to standard simulation-based training.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze all published prospective, randomized, and blinded clinical studies on the proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using objective performance metrics. BACKGROUND: The benefit of PBP methodology to learning clinical skills in comparison to conventional training is not settled. METHODS: Search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from inception to 1st March 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results were pooled using biased corrected standardized mean difference and ratio-of-means. Summary effects were evaluated using a series of fixed and random effects models. The primary outcome was the number of procedural errors performed comparing PBP and non-PBP-based training pathways. Secondary outcomes were the number of procedural steps completed and the time to complete the task/procedure. RESULTS: From the initial pool of 468 studies, 12 randomized clinical studies with a total of 239 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the non-PBP training, ratio-of-means results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 60% (P < 0.001) and procedural time by 15% (P = 0.003) and increased the number of steps performed by 47% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that PBP training in comparison to conventional or quality assured training improved trainees' performances, by decreasing procedural errors and procedural time, while increasing the number of correct steps taken when compared to standard simulation-based training.
Authors: Marcos Gómez Ruiz; Samson Tou; Anthony G Gallagher; Carmen Cagigas Fernández; Lidia Cristobal Poch; Klaus E Matzel Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Carl J Wijburg; Gerjon Hannink; Charlotte T J Michels; Philip C Weijerman; Rami Issa; Andrea Tay; Karel Decaestecker; Peter Wiklund; Abolfazl Hosseini; Ashwin Sridhar; John Kelly; Frederiek d'Hondt; Alexandre Mottrie; Sjoerd Klaver; Sebastian Edeling; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Francesco Montorsi; Maroeska M Rovers; J Alfred Witjes Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-04-02
Authors: Stefano Puliatti; Ahmed Eissa; Enrico Checcucci; Pietro Piazza; Marco Amato; Stefania Ferretti; Simone Scarcella; Juan Gomez Rivas; Mark Taratkin; Josè Marenco; Ines Belenchon Rivero; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Giovanni Cacciamani; Ahmed El-Sherbiny; Ahmed Zoeir; Abdelhamid M El-Bahnasy; Ruben De Groote; Alexandre Mottrie; Salvatore Micali Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Arjun Nathan; Sonam Patel; Maria Georgi; Monty Fricker; Aqua Asif; Alexander Ng; William Mullins; Man Kien Hang; Alexander Light; Senthil Nathan; Nader Francis; John Kelly; Justin Collins; Ashwin Sridhar Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-10-17