↓ Skip to main content

Impact of one-to-one tutoring on fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) passing rate in a single center experience outside the United States: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Impact of one-to-one tutoring on fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) passing rate in a single center experience outside the United States: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6185-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Gheza, Paolo Raimondi, Leonardo Solaini, Federico Coccolini, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Nazario Portolani, Guido Alberto Massimo Tiberio

Abstract

Outside the US, FLS certification is not required and its teaching methods are not well standardized. Even if the FLS was designed as "stand alone" training system, most of Academic Institution offer support to residents during training. We present the first systematic application of FLS in Italy. Our aim was to evaluate the role of mentoring/coaching on FLS training in terms of the passing rate and global performance in the search for resource optimization. Sixty residents in general surgery, obstetrics & gynecology, and urology were selected to be enrolled in a randomized controlled trial, practicing FLS with the goal of passing a simulated final exam. The control group practiced exclusively with video material from SAGES, whereas the interventional group was supported by a mentor. Forty-six subjects met the requirements and completed the trial. For the other 14 subjects no results are available for comparison. One subject for each group failed the exam, resulting in a passing rate of 95.7%, with no obvious differences between groups. Subgroup analysis did not reveal any difference between the groups for FLS tasks. We confirm that methods other than video instruction and deliberate FLS practice are not essential to pass the final exam. Based on these results, we suggest the introduction of the FLS system even where a trained tutor is not available. This trial is the first single institution application of the FLS in Italy and one of the few experiences outside the US. Trial Number: NCT02486575 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Unspecified 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 34%
Unspecified 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,387,654
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,284
of 6,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,842
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#59
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,111 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.