Claims

Only one of 11 included studies directly addressed Surgical Instrumentation students, making most evidence indirect for that field

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · 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? Direct evidence for Surgical Instrumentation students is limited to a single Colombian quasi-experimental study; findings from residents, medical and nursing students are indirect evidence requiring cautious transfer. → Vega Ochoa AD 2026

Evidence

Vega Ochoa AD 2026

Vega Ochoa AD, Pinto Bautista HL, Weber Ipuana WJ, González Cuello MÁ, Díaz Pérez A. (2026). Student perceptions of technology-enhanced simulation resources in laparoscopic training: a scoping review and implications for surgical instrumentation. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10009-z

q2 · i? · review · r2

Evidence-mapping result of the scoping review itself. The one direct study (Acevedo-Osorio et al., 2025, Colombia) was a quasi-experimental study of Surgical Instrumentation students using virtual reality; Table 6 rates direct evidence as "High relevance, low breadth" with limited external validity.

"Only one included study directly addressed Surgical Instrumentation students [38]. Therefore, most findings should be considered indirect evidence derived from medical students, residents, nursing students or mixed surgical trainees"

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.