Only seven studies of vascular surgery simulation achieved a level of effectiveness greater than 3/5, with the majority scoring LoE 1-2/5¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Only seven simulators demonstrated improvement in the operating theater, patient outcomes, or skill retention (LoE 3+/5), while most studies scored LoE 1-2/5, indicating limited evidence of real-world skill transfer. → Haiser Alexander 2022

Evidence¶

Haiser Alexander 2022¶

Haiser Alexander, Aydin Abdullatif, Kunduzi Basir, Ahmed Kamran, Dasgupta Prokar. (2022). A Systematic Review of Simulation-Based Training in Vascular Surgery. The Journal of Surgical Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.05.009

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Synthesis across all 34 simulators in the systematic review using an adapted McGaghie translational outcomes scale, where LoE 3 denotes behavioral change in the clinical context and LoE 5 denotes collateral effects such as skill retention. The review states "the majority of studies scoring an LoE = 1-2/5".

"Only seven simulators demonstrated improvement in the operating theater, patient outcomes, and skill retention (LoE 3+/5), with the majority of studies scoring an LoE = 1-2/5."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A systematic review identified 76 eligible articles validating 34 vascular surgery simulators and training courses for open and endovascular procedures — a broader claim this one bears on
• ANGIO Mentor was the most highly validated and effective vascular simulator and the only simulator to achieve an LoE of 5/5 — related
• VIST endovascular simulator training transferred to real-world performance, with improved technical skill metrics on real patients (LoE 3/5) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Nontechnical-skills simulation of ruptured AAA with the Resusci Anne Simulator directly improved patient outcomes, reducing door-to-occlusion time, door-to-needle time, and 30-day mortality (LoE 4/5) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• No longitudinal studies or RCTs demonstrate that AI-acquired skills transfer to the operating room — related
• Evidence for technology-enhanced basic robotic skills training is concentrated at Kirkpatrick level 2, with no studies reporting transfer to operative behaviour or patient outcomes — related
• Evidence for transfer of simulation training to operating-room outcomes was sparse in neuro-oncological simulation research — related
• Evidence on transfer to clinical behavior and patient outcomes is scarce: only 2 studies reached Kirkpatrick level 3 and 1 reached level 4 — related