The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Department of Clinical Skills Training Center, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Ann Med. 2022 Dec;54(1):1646-1656. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2085317.
Multiple assessment tools are used in arthroscopic training and play an important role in feedback. However, it is not fully recognized as to the standard way to apply these tools. Our study aimed to investigate the use of assessment tools in arthroscopic training and determine whether there is an optimal way to apply various assessment tools in arthroscopic training.
A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases for articles published in English from January 2000 to July 2021. Eligible for inclusion were primary research articles related to using assessment tools for the evaluation of arthroscopic skills and training environments. Studies that focussed only on therapeutic cases, did not report outcome measures of technical skills, or did not mention arthroscopic skills training were excluded.
A total of 28 studies were included for review. Multiple assessment tools were used in arthroscopic training. The most common objective metric was completion time, reported in 21 studies. Technical parameters based on simulator or external equipment, such as instrument path length, hand movement, visual parameters and injury, were also widely used. Subjective assessment tools included checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Among these, the most commonly used GRS was the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET). Most of the studies combined objective metrics and subjective assessment scales in the evaluation of arthroscopic skill training.
Overall, both subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training, but there are still differences in the frequency of application in different contexts. Despite this, combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment.
Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies. Key messagesBoth subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training.Combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment.
关节镜手术培训中使用了多种评估工具,这些工具在反馈中起着重要作用。然而,目前尚不完全清楚如何以标准的方式应用这些工具。本研究旨在调查关节镜手术培训中评估工具的使用情况,并确定在关节镜手术培训中应用各种评估工具是否存在最佳方法。
使用 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 电子数据库对 2000 年 1 月至 2021 年 7 月期间发表的英文文章进行检索。纳入的研究为使用评估工具评估关节镜技能和培训环境的原始研究。仅关注治疗病例、未报告技术技能的结果测量指标或未提及关节镜技能培训的研究被排除在外。
共纳入 28 项研究进行综述。关节镜培训中使用了多种评估工具。最常见的客观指标是完成时间,有 21 项研究报告了该指标。基于模拟器或外部设备的技术参数,如器械路径长度、手部运动、视觉参数和损伤,也被广泛应用。主观评估工具包括检查表和整体评分量表(GRS)。其中,最常用的 GRS 是关节镜手术技能评估工具(ASSET)。大多数研究在评估关节镜技能培训时将客观指标和主观评估量表相结合。
总体而言,主观和客观评估工具均可作为基本关节镜技能培训的反馈,但在不同背景下的应用频率仍存在差异。尽管如此,主观和客观评估工具的联合使用可以应用于更多的情况和技能,是评估的最佳方式。
III 级,对 I 级至 III 级研究的系统评价。关键信息主观和客观评估工具均可作为基本关节镜技能培训的反馈。主观和客观评估工具的联合使用可以应用于更多的情况和技能,是评估的最佳方式。