Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service (Dr. Ferriss); Division of Urogynecology (Dr. Patterson); Division of Gynecologic Specialties (Dr. Patzkowsky); Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Drs. Frost and Bienstock); Welch Medical Library (Ms. Blanck), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Women's Health, Dell School of Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (Drs. Heinzman and Tsai).
Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service (Dr. Ferriss); Division of Urogynecology (Dr. Patterson); Division of Gynecologic Specialties (Dr. Patzkowsky); Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Drs. Frost and Bienstock); Welch Medical Library (Ms. Blanck), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Women's Health, Dell School of Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (Drs. Heinzman and Tsai).
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Oct 18.
To collect, summarize, and evaluate the currently available intraoperative rating tools used in abdominal minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS).
Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from January 1, 2000, to May 12, 2020.
A systematic search strategy was designed and executed. Published studies evaluating an assessment tool in abdominal MIGS cases were included. Studies focused on simulation, reviews, and abstracts without a published manuscript were excluded. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed for each study.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Disparate study methods prevented quantitative synthesis of the data. Ten studies were included in the analysis. The tools were grouped into global (n = 4) and procedure-specific assessments (n = 6). Most studies evaluated small numbers of surgeons and lacked a comparison group to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool. All studies demonstrated content validity and at least 1 dimension of reliability, and 2 have external validity. The intraoperative procedure-specific tools have been more thoroughly evaluated than the global scales.
Procedure-specific intraoperative assessment tools for MIGS cases are more thoroughly evaluated than global tools; however, poor-quality studies and borderline reliability limit their use. Well-designed, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative assessment tools in MIGS are needed.
收集、总结和评估目前用于腹部微创妇科手术（MIGS）的术中评估工具。
2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 5 月 12 日，Medline、Embase 和 Scopus 数据库。
设计并执行了系统的搜索策略。纳入了评估腹部 MIGS 病例中评估工具的研究。排除了侧重于模拟、综述和没有发表手稿的摘要的研究。对每项研究的偏倚风险和方法学质量进行了评估。
列表、综合和结果：不同的研究方法阻止了对数据的定量综合。10 项研究被纳入分析。这些工具分为总体（n=4）和特定程序评估（n=6）。大多数研究评估了少数外科医生，并且缺乏对照组来评估该工具的有效性。所有研究均显示出内容有效性，至少有 1 个维度的可靠性，并且有 2 个具有外部有效性。与全球量表相比，针对 MIGS 病例的特定手术过程的术中评估工具得到了更全面的评估。
针对 MIGS 病例的特定手术过程的术中评估工具比全球工具得到了更全面的评估；但是，研究质量差和可靠性边缘限制了其使用。需要设计良好、对照评估术中评估工具在 MIGS 中有效性的研究。
