No objective assessment tool for laparoscopic cholecystectomy demonstrates comprehensive validity across all Messick domains, so no gold standard exists¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
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 a systematic review of 60 studies of manual, kinematic, and AI-based assessment tools for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, no single tool demonstrated comprehensive validity evidence across all Messick domains and no true gold standard exists. → Mainwaring Elizabeth M. A. 2026
Evidence¶
Mainwaring Elizabeth M. A. 2026¶
Mainwaring Elizabeth M. A., Guidozzi Nadia, James Jonnie P., Pantling Jai, Menon Nainika, Salem Riadh, Markar Sheraz R. (2026). Objective technical skills assessment in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of manual, kinematic, and AI-based tools. Surgical Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-13309-z
q3 · i? · review · r3
The review's own synthesis of 60 included studies (41 manual, 6 kinematic, 13 AI), grouped by modality and rated across Messick's six validity domains, concluded that "no true gold standard currently exists" for LC skill assessment. The synthesis was narrative, as heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.
"No single tool demonstrated comprehensive validity evidence across all Messick domains and therefore, no true gold standard currently exists."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Kinematic assessment systems for laparoscopic cholecystectomy are weakly validated, restricted to small datasets, and capture only a narrow component of operative competence — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Manual assessment tools have the largest body of validity evidence in laparoscopic cholecystectomy but show variable reliability and no links to patient outcomes — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- AI-based assessment systems show strong internal performance and early real-time deployment for critical view of safety detection, but lack external validation and clinical impact evidence — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Methodological quality of LC assessment-tool studies is moderate (MERSQI median 12.5) and outcomes rarely extend beyond performance-level measures — related
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.