A systematic review of minimally invasive gynecological surgery identified 37 objective assessment tools across 72 included studies¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Systematic searching (1989–2022, four databases) yielded 72 included articles reporting 37 distinct assessment tools, comprising 13 manual global tools, 13 manual procedure-specific tools and 11 automated performance metrics. → Tesfai FM 2024
Evidence¶
Tesfai FM 2024¶
Tesfai FM, Nagi J, Morrison I, Boal M, Olaitan A, Chandrasekaran D, Stoyanov D, Lanceley A, Francis N. (2024). Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14840
q3 · i? · review · r3
Systematic review following PRISMA with PROSPERO registration (ID CRD42022376552); three independent assessors screened and extracted data. The review reports that "19 746 titles and abstracts were screened" and 72 articles met inclusion, yielding 37 tools in three categories.
"A total of 19 746 titles and abstracts were screened of which 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 37 different assessment tools were identified of which 13 represented manual global assessment tools, 13 manual procedure‐specific assessment tools and 11 automated performance metrices."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A systematic review of robotic surgery training identified 209 studies that included an assessment tool, out of 1591 records screened — related
- No objective assessment tool in minimally invasive gynecological surgery showed predictive validity correlating scores with patient outcomes — related
- Only two of 37 objective assessment tools in minimally invasive gynecological surgery showed substantial evidence of validity — related
- The majority of automated performance metrics in gynecological surgery have limited validity evidence, hindering transferability outside research settings — related
- A systematic search identified six studies of performance metrics for robotic hysterectomy, revealing a lack of standardized and validated metrics specific to the procedure. — related
- Most identified assessment tools demonstrate construct or concurrent validity, but predictive validity is absent across tool categories — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.