GLVS(通用腹腔镜视频评分系统)的开发和验证,这是一种使用录像程序评估妇科腹腔镜技术的工具:编辑后的视频是否代表其完整版本?

IF 1.7 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082
S Khazali, A Bachi, T.T. Carpenter, A Moors, K Ballard
{"title":"GLVS(通用腹腔镜视频评分系统)的开发和验证,这是一种使用录像程序评估妇科腹腔镜技术的工具:编辑后的视频是否代表其完整版本?","authors":"S Khazali, A Bachi, T.T. Carpenter, A Moors, K Ballard","doi":"10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.","PeriodicalId":46400,"journal":{"name":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?\",\"authors\":\"S Khazali, A Bachi, T.T. Carpenter, A Moors, K Ballard\",\"doi\":\"10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52054/fvvo.15.2.082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:匿名内镜手术录像可用于评估手术能力,但妇科需要一个可靠的非特定手术评分系统。目的:设计和评估通用腹腔镜视频评分系统(GLVS)的有效性,GLVS是一种评估各种妇科腹腔镜手术的新工具。材料与方法:17段未经编辑的匿名妇科腹腔镜手术录像和同一视频的4分钟剪辑版,由两位专家独立评分,使用GLVS进行两次评分。主要结果测量:GLVS的内部一致性信度、重测信度和评分间信度。我们还比较了剪辑后的视频与完整版视频的得分。结果:经过编辑的4分钟视频的平均得分与未经编辑的视频相似(p= 0.13 - 0.19)。编辑版本和未编辑版本的综合评分之间存在极好的相关性(类内相关系数= 0.86)。GLVS具有良好的内部一致性信度(Cronbach 's alpha 0.92-0.97)。与全长视频相比,编辑过的4分钟视频的重测和评分者之间的信度通常更好。评分者1的重测信度较好,评分者2的重测信度较好,类内相关系数(ICC)分别为0.88和0.62。对于编辑过的视频(ICC=0.64),评分者间的信度较好,但对于全长版本(ICC= -0.24),评分者间的信度较差。结论:GLVS允许使用匿名缩短的自我编辑的基本妇科腹腔镜手术视频进行客观的手术技能评估。缩短的手术视频片段似乎代表了完整版本的手术技能评估。有什么新鲜事吗?我们设计并进行了一项验证研究,用于使用手术视频剪辑评估手术技能的新工具。我们相信这一补充清楚地描述了我们研究的独特贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?
Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology. Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos. Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24). Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills. What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn
Facts Views and Vision in ObGyn OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
自引率
15.00%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
3D versus 4K laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure after hysterectomy by surgeons in training: a prospective randomised trial. Achieving successful outcomes with endometrial ablation needs better case selection. Author's response. Caesarean scar defect and retained products of conception (RPOC): a step-by-step combined hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment. Electrosurgery: heating, sparking and electrical arcs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1