Claims

Virtual endoscopy simulator training shows no statistically significant benefit for independent procedure completion in colonoscopy training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88–1.37, P=0.41)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Across 7 studies (163 participants), independent colonoscopy completion was 89.3% in the simulator group versus 88.9% in controls (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88–1.37, P=0.41), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=85%). → Qiao Weiguang 2014

Evidence

Qiao Weiguang 2014

Qiao Weiguang, Bai Yang, Lv Ruxi, Zhang Wendi, Chen Yuqing, Lei Shan, Zhi Fachao. (2014). The Effect of Virtual Endoscopy Simulator Training on Novices: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089224

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analysis of colonoscopy RCTs pooling "7 study, 163 participants". The review reports "RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88–1.37, P = 0.41" with no significant difference; chi-square showed great heterogeneity (P<0.00001) and I² was 85%.

"Procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in the simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in the no simulator training group (7 study, 163 participants, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88–1.37, P = 0.41; see Figure 7)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.