Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2018
A systematic review of validated sinus surgery simulators.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stew B, Kao S S-T, Dharmawardana N, Ooi E H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Simulation provides a safe and effective opportunity to develop surgical skills. A variety of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) simulators has been described in the literature. Validation of these simulators allows for effective utilisation in training.
OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To conduct a systematic review of the published literature to analyse the evidence for validated ESS simulation.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Cinahl were searched from inception of the databases to 11 January 2017.
EVALUATION METHOD: Twelve thousand five hundred and sixteen articles were retrieved of which 10 112 were screened following the removal of duplicates. Thirty-eight full-text articles were reviewed after meeting search criteria. Evidence of face, content, construct, discriminant and predictive validity was extracted.
RESULTS: Twenty articles were included in the analysis describing 12 ESS simulators. Eleven of these simulators had undergone validation: 3 virtual reality, 7 physical bench models and 1 cadaveric simulator. Seven of the simulators were shown to have face validity, 7 had construct validity and 1 had predictive validity. None of the simulators demonstrated discriminate validity.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that a number of ESS simulators have been comprehensively validated. Many of the validation processes, however, lack standardisation in outcome reporting, thus limiting a meta-analysis comparison between simulators.
OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To conduct a systematic review of the published literature to analyse the evidence for validated ESS simulation.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Cinahl were searched from inception of the databases to 11 January 2017.
EVALUATION METHOD: Twelve thousand five hundred and sixteen articles were retrieved of which 10 112 were screened following the removal of duplicates. Thirty-eight full-text articles were reviewed after meeting search criteria. Evidence of face, content, construct, discriminant and predictive validity was extracted.
RESULTS: Twenty articles were included in the analysis describing 12 ESS simulators. Eleven of these simulators had undergone validation: 3 virtual reality, 7 physical bench models and 1 cadaveric simulator. Seven of the simulators were shown to have face validity, 7 had construct validity and 1 had predictive validity. None of the simulators demonstrated discriminate validity.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that a number of ESS simulators have been comprehensively validated. Many of the validation processes, however, lack standardisation in outcome reporting, thus limiting a meta-analysis comparison between simulators.