| Title |
Video review program enhances resident training in laparoscopic inguinal hernia: a randomized blinded controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5992-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryota Tanaka, Francis DeAsis, Yalini Vigneswaran, John Linn, JoAnn Carbray, Woody Denham, Stephen Haggerty, Michael Ujiki |
| Abstract |
The purpose was to determine if a standardized video review program for residents improves operative performance. Participation was offered to surgical residents rotating on a minimally invasive service. Residents were randomized to either the video review group or no video review group. Every participant in the video review group underwent video reviews with an attending surgeon for 30 min once weekly during their 1-month rotation. A blinded surgeon evaluated performance in the operating room using validated assessment tools. The amount of time the resident spent as primary surgeon was recorded. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the video and no video review groups. Differences were considered statistically significant for p values < 0.05. Sixteen residents were randomized to the video review group (n = 8) or the no video review group (n = 8). Residents in the video review cohort significantly improved in creating a working space (p = 0.04), hernia sac reduction (p = 0.01), mesh placement (p = 0.01), knowledge of the procedure (p = 0.01), and overall competence (p = 0.02). Residents in the no video review group did not significantly improve in five of seven categories. The video review group significantly increased the time spent as primary surgeon (p = 0.02). Video review with a coach proved to be beneficial for residents when learning laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. We conclude that systematic video review is a good supplemental tool in resident surgical training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Turkey | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 38% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,501,310
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,843
of 6,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,734
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#82
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 440,933 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.