Claims

Evidence for RT in advanced laparoscopic training is mixed, with cohort studies showing improvement but RCT findings inconsistent

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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? Three cohort studies showed significant laparoscopic skill improvement with RT, while RCTs were mixed: one found no difference versus TL and another found RT superior. → Morsund Lars Andreas Lars 2026

Evidence

Morsund Lars Andreas Lars 2026

Morsund Lars Andreas Lars, Singh Shraddha, Patel Agastya, Lancellotti Francesco, Satyadas Thomas. (2026). Computer-based surgical skill training: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08830-7

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's RT synthesis section reports that "Three cohort studies showed significant improvement in laparoscopic skills" while randomized trial results diverged between no difference and RT superiority.

"Three cohort studies showed significant improvement in laparoscopic skills improvement [21, 28, 31], while RCT findings were mixed. One trail showed no difference compared to TL [9], whereas another identified RT as superior in performance outcomes [15]."

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.