Claims

No significant correlation between hours of RAS practice and simulator task performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
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.

q2 i? Pearson correlations between self-reported RAS practice hours and performance were not significant for the Tubes task (p = 0.20), Suture Sponge task (p = 0.07), or Dots and Needles task (p = 0.85). → Shafiei 2024

Evidence

Shafiei 2024

Shafiei, S. B., Shadpour, S., Sasangohar, F., Mohler, J. L., Attwood, K. & Jing, Z. (2024). Development of performance and learning rate evaluation models in robot-assisted surgery using electroencephalography and eye-tracking. npj Science of Learning 9:3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00216-y

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Pearson correlation analysis across the 26 subjects, whose self-reported RAS experience hours ranged from 0 to more than 1000. Only p-values are printed, so the finding is a non-detection, not a measured null effect; equivalence was not tested.

"The results revealed no significant correlation between RAS practice hours and performance in the Tubes task (Pearson correlation; p-value = 0.20), Suture Sponge task (Pearson correlation; p-value = 0.07), and Dots and Needles task (Pearson correlation; p-value = 0.85)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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