Claims

Virtual endoscopy simulator training is superior to no-simulator control for independent procedure completion in gastroscopy training of novices (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13–1.39, P<0.0001)

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? In one included RCT, 87.7% of novices in the simulator training group completed gastroscopy procedures independently compared to 70.0% in the control group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13–1.39, P<0.0001). → 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 RCTs comparing virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside or other training for novices; gastroscopy subgroup pooled from "1 study, 22 participants". The review reports "RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13–1.39, P<0.0001" favouring simulator training for independent completion.

"Procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in the simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in the no simulator training group (1 study, 22 participants, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13–1.39, P<0.0001; see Figure 4)."

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.