Objective assessment tools were used in 49% of robotic training studies, subjective forms in 23%, and 28% used both¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across the 209 included studies, 102 articles (49%) used objective assessment tools, 47 studies (23%) used subjective assessment methods, and 60 studies (28%) used a combination. → Rahimi A. Masie 2024

Evidence¶

Rahimi A. Masie 2024¶

Rahimi A. Masie, Uluç Ezgi, Hardon Sem F., Bonjer H. Jaap, van der Peet Donald L., Daams Freek. (2024). Training in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review of training modalities and objective and subjective assessment methods. Surgical Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10915-7

q3 · i? · review · r2

Narrative synthesis classifying each study's assessment as objective (time, motion, force, collisions, physiological metrics) or subjective (forms such as GEARS, OSATS, GOALS, or feedback). The majority of objective methods were built-in simulator scoring systems.

"Out of the total 209 studies, 47 studies (23%) used subjective assessment methods such as assessment forms, while 102 articles (49%) used objective assessment tools (Supplemental File A, Fig. A2). 60 studies (28%) used a combination of subjective and objective assessment methods."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A systematic review of robotic surgery training identified 209 studies that included an assessment tool, out of 1591 records screened — related
• Only three bespoke rater-based assessment tools and one sensor-based method exist for assessing non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery — related
• Most studies (60.7%) of arthroscopic skills training combined objective metrics with subjective assessment scales — related