↓ Skip to main content

Video assessment of laparoscopic skills by novices and experts: implications for surgical education

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Video assessment of laparoscopic skills by novices and experts: implications for surgical education
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5417-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celine Yeung, Brian Carrillo, Victor Pope, Shahob Hosseinpour, J. Ted Gerstle, Georges Azzie

Abstract

Previous investigators have shown that novices are able to assess surgical skills as reliably as expert surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how novices and experts arrive at these graded scores when assessing laparoscopic skills and the potential implications this may have for surgical education. Four novices and four general laparoscopic surgeons evaluated 59 videos of a suturing task using a 5-point scale. Average novice and expert evaluator scores for each video and the average number of times that scores were changed were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Evaluators were asked to define the number of videos they needed to watch before they could confidently grade and to describe how they were able to distinguish between different levels of expertise. There were no significant differences in mean scores assigned by the two evaluator groups. Novices changed their scores more frequently compared to experts, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was excellent inter-rater reliability between the two groups (ICC = 0.91, CI 0.85-0.95) and good test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.83). On average, novices and experts reported that they needed to watch 13.8 ± 2.4 and 8.5 ± 2.5 videos, respectively, before they could confidently grade. Both groups also identified similar qualitative indicators (e.g., instrument control). Evaluators with varying levels of expertise can reliably grade performance of an intracorporeal suturing task. While novices were less confident in their grading, both groups were able to assign comparable scores and identify similar elements of a suturing skill as being important in terms of assessment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Engineering 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,152,313
of 9,076,202 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,156
of 2,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,594
of 253,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#31
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,076,202 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.