Claims

Mitral valve simulator performance scores increase with training level, from general surgery residents to cardiothoracic residents to attending surgeons

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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.

q2 i? Composite scores on a 1–100 scale differed significantly by training level: 32.9 (SD 11.4) for general surgery residents, 65.1 (SD 11.5) for cardiothoracic residents and 88.3 (SD 7.8) for attending surgeons (p < 0.001). → EL-Andari R 2023

Evidence

EL-Andari R 2023

EL-Andari R, Bozso SJ, Kang JJH, Fialka NM, Adams C, Nagendran J. (2023). Teaching heart valve surgery techniques using simulators: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.017921

q2 · i? · review · r2

Construct-validity comparison using a low-fidelity mitral valve replacement trainer: times to completion, needle angle, accuracy, suture placement and knot tying were compared between general surgery residents, cardiothoracic residents and attending surgeons, with "significant differences between groups for all scores measured".

"The scores achieved were 32.9 (standard deviation [SD] 11.4), 65.1 (SD 11.5) and 88.3 (SD 7.8) for general surgery residents, cardiothoracic surgery residents and attending surgeons, respectively (p < 0.001)."

Discussion

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.