↓ Skip to main content

Educational system based on the TAPP checklist improves the performance of novices: a multicenter randomized trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Educational system based on the TAPP checklist improves the performance of novices: a multicenter randomized trial
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5950-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saseem Poudel, Yo Kurashima, Kimitaka Tanaka, Hiroshi Kawase, Yoichi M. Ito, Fumitaka Nakamura, Toshiaki Shichinohe, Satoshi Hirano

Abstract

Despite recent developments in surgical education, obstacles including inadequate budget, limited human resources, and a scarcity of time have limited its widespread adoption. To provide systematic training for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, we had previously developed and validated a checklist to evaluate the recorded performance of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair. We had also developed an educational system that included didactic materials based on the TAPP checklist and incorporated remote evaluation and feedback system. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational impact of the TAPP education system on novice surgeons. Residents and surgeons from participating hospitals, who had performed 0 or 1 TAPP procedure, were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG), who trained using this new educational tool, and the control group (CG), who trained using the conventional system. Their surgical videos were rated by blinded raters. All participants performed their first case prior to randomization. The primary outcome was improvement of TAPP checklist score from the first to the third case. Eighteen participants from 9 institutes were recruited for this study. Seven participants in the IG and 5 participants in the CG were included in the final analysis. The participants in the IG demonstrated significant improvement in their TAPP performance (p = 0.044) from their first case to their third case, whereas their counterparts in the CG failed to make any significant progress during the same period (p = 0.581). The new TAPP educational system was effective in improving the TAPP performance of novice surgeons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 23 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 24 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,752,783
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#813
of 6,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,186
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#33
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 331,173 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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 74% of its contemporaries.