Assessment methods in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review of available instruments

3Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic surgery has become the golden standard for many procedures, requiring new skills and training methods. The aim of this review is to appraise literature on assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal procedures and quantify these methods for implementation in surgical training. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched in October 2022 for studies reporting learning and assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Quality was scored using the Downs and Black checklist. Included articles were categorized in procedure-based assessment methods and non-procedure-based assessment methods. A second distinction was made between capability for formative and/or summative assessment. Results: In this systematic review, nineteen studies were included. These studies showed large heterogeneity despite categorization. Median quality score was 15 (range 0–26). Fourteen studies were categorized as procedure-based assessment methods (PBA), and five as non-procedure-based assessment methods. Three studies were applicable for summative assessment. Conclusions: The results show a considerable diversity in assessment methods with varying quality and suitability. To prevent a sprawl of assessment methods, we argue for selection and development of available high-quality assessment methods. A procedure-based structure combined with an objective assessment scale and possibility for summative assessment should be cornerstones.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van Zwieten, T., Okkema, S., van Det, M., Pereboom, I., Veeger, N., & Pierie, J. P. (2023). Assessment methods in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review of available instruments. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04395-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free