Claims

Virtual endoscopy simulator training increases required assistance in colonoscopy training (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38–4.55, P=0.002)

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, 70% of novices in the simulator group required assistance during colonoscopy compared to 28% in the no-simulator group (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38–4.55, P=0.002). → 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 colonoscopy RCTs; required-assistance outcome from "1 study, 16 participants". The review reports "RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38–4.55, P = 0.002", with more assistance needed in the simulator group.

"The number of required assistance in simulator group is more than that in control group. Seventy per cent of participants in the simulator group required assistance compared to 28% of participants in the no simulator group (1 study, 16 participants, RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.38–4.55, P = 0.002; see Figure 9)."

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.