| Title |
Can a Computerized Simulator Assess Skill Level and Improvement in Performance of ERCP?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-015-3939-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ara B. Sahakian, Loren Laine, Priya A. Jamidar, Uzma D. Siddiqui, Andrew Duffy, Maria M. Ciarleglio, Yanhong Deng, Anil Nagar, Harry R. Aslanian |
| Abstract |
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is a challenging procedure with considerable risk. Computerized simulators are valuable in training for flexible endoscopy, but little data exist for their use in ERCP training. To determine a simulator's ability to assess the level of ERCP skill and its responsiveness over time to increasing trainee experience. In this prospective parallel-arm cohort study, six novice gastroenterology fellows and four gastroenterology faculty with expertise in ERCP completed four simulated baseline cases and the same four cases at a later date. This study took place at a surgical skills center at an academic tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was the total time to complete the ERCP procedure. For the baseline session, experts had a shorter total procedure time than novices (444.0 vs. 616.9 s; least squares mean; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between experts and novices in the difference of total procedure time between session 1 and session 2 (-200.3 vs. -164.4; least squares mean; p = 0.402). The simulator was able to differentiate experts from novices for the primary outcome of total procedure time. The simulator was not responsive to an increase in trainee experience over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,362
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,859
of 285,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#33
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 285,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.