Only one identified training study evaluated transfer to clinical outcomes, finding no impact¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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? Only one study, for laparoscopic appendicectomy, evaluated a training intervention using clinical outcomes, and it could not show an impact of the training intervention. → Hertz P 2024
Evidence¶
Hertz P 2024¶
Hertz P , Rattenborg S , Haug TR , Houlind K , Konge L , Bjerrum F . (2024). Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy– a systematic review. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16905
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review identified this single study (the STAR trial, a randomised pilot study) among training studies for laparoscopic appendicectomy. It reports that "they could not show an impact of the training intervention" on clinical outcomes.
"However, we identified only one study, for laparoscopic appendicectomy, that evaluated a training intervention using clinical outcomes [73]. However, they could not show an impact of the training intervention."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Simulation Based Education With Deliberate Practice Improves Clinical Outcomes — related
- Only one included study assessed predictive validity, showing a curriculum including body donor lab sessions improved real-patient laparoscopic performance over conventional training — 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.