Effect of AR on OSATS Specific scores is uncertain due to high heterogeneity and publication bias¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·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? The pooled OSATS Specific mean difference was −4.81 points (95% CI [−6.43, −3.29], p < 0.005), but with high heterogeneity (I2 = 71%) and significant Egger's test, the outcome was excluded from GRADE assessment. → Xiong Jian 2024
Evidence¶
Xiong Jian 2024¶
Xiong Jian, Dai Xiaoqin, Zhang Yuyang, Liu Xingchao, Zhou Xiyuan. (2024). Augmented reality for basic skills training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11387-5
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Meta-analysis of three studies reporting OSATS Specific scores. The pooled estimate favored AR, but "due to high heterogeneity (I2 = 71%)" the outcome was excluded from GRADE, and Egger's test was significant (P = 0.0047), suggesting publication bias.
"The OSATS Specific score indicated a mean difference of −4.81 points (95% CI [−6.43, −3.29], p < 0.005)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
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.