计算机化结肠镜检查模拟器主观验证方法的系统回顾

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Informatics Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1177/14604582241279692
Adrián Lugilde-López, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, Fernando A. Mikic-Fonte, Martín Llamas-Nistal
{"title":"计算机化结肠镜检查模拟器主观验证方法的系统回顾","authors":"Adrián Lugilde-López, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, Fernando A. Mikic-Fonte, Martín Llamas-Nistal","doi":"10.1177/14604582241279692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In recent years, different approaches have been used to conduct a subjective assessment of colonoscopy simulators. The purpose of this paper is to review these different approaches, specifically the ones used for computerized simulators, as the first step for the design of a standard validation procedure for this type of simulators. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching papers after 2010 in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore databases. Papers were screened and reviewed for procedures regarding the subjective validation of computerized simulators for traditional colonoscopy with an endoscope. Results: An initial search in the databases identified 2094 papers, of which 7 remained after exhaustive review and application of exclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires for subjective validation, with “face” being the most common validity type tested, while “content” validity and “usability” were less prominent. Conclusions: A classification of subscales for testing face validity was derived from the studies. The Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire (CSRQ) was selected as the guide to follow for the development of future questionnaires related to subjective validation. Mislabeling of the validity tested in the studies due to ambiguous interpretations of the validity types was a common occurrence observed in the reviewed studies.","PeriodicalId":55069,"journal":{"name":"Health Informatics Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of subjective validation methods for computerized colonoscopy simulators\",\"authors\":\"Adrián Lugilde-López, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, Fernando A. Mikic-Fonte, Martín Llamas-Nistal\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14604582241279692\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: In recent years, different approaches have been used to conduct a subjective assessment of colonoscopy simulators. The purpose of this paper is to review these different approaches, specifically the ones used for computerized simulators, as the first step for the design of a standard validation procedure for this type of simulators. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching papers after 2010 in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore databases. Papers were screened and reviewed for procedures regarding the subjective validation of computerized simulators for traditional colonoscopy with an endoscope. Results: An initial search in the databases identified 2094 papers, of which 7 remained after exhaustive review and application of exclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires for subjective validation, with “face” being the most common validity type tested, while “content” validity and “usability” were less prominent. Conclusions: A classification of subscales for testing face validity was derived from the studies. The Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire (CSRQ) was selected as the guide to follow for the development of future questionnaires related to subjective validation. Mislabeling of the validity tested in the studies due to ambiguous interpretations of the validity types was a common occurrence observed in the reviewed studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Informatics Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Informatics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241279692\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Informatics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241279692","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:近年来,人们采用了不同的方法对结肠镜检查模拟器进行主观评估。本文旨在回顾这些不同的方法,特别是用于计算机化模拟器的方法,以此作为设计此类模拟器标准验证程序的第一步。方法:通过在 PubMed、Google Scholar、ScienceDirect 和 IEEE Xplore 数据库中搜索 2010 年之后的论文,进行了一次系统性回顾。筛选并审查了有关使用内窥镜进行传统结肠镜检查的计算机化模拟器主观验证程序的论文。结果:在数据库中进行初步搜索后发现了 2094 篇论文,经过详尽审查并应用排除标准后,保留了 7 篇论文。所有研究都使用问卷进行主观验证,其中 "表面 "验证是最常见的验证类型,而 "内容 "验证和 "可用性 "验证则不太常见。结论从这些研究中得出了用于测试表面效度的子量表分类。结肠镜检查模拟器真实性问卷(CSRQ)被选为今后开发主观效度相关问卷的指南。由于对效度类型的解释含糊不清,导致研究中测试的效度标示不清,这在所审查的研究中很常见。
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
Systematic review of subjective validation methods for computerized colonoscopy simulators
Introduction: In recent years, different approaches have been used to conduct a subjective assessment of colonoscopy simulators. The purpose of this paper is to review these different approaches, specifically the ones used for computerized simulators, as the first step for the design of a standard validation procedure for this type of simulators. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching papers after 2010 in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore databases. Papers were screened and reviewed for procedures regarding the subjective validation of computerized simulators for traditional colonoscopy with an endoscope. Results: An initial search in the databases identified 2094 papers, of which 7 remained after exhaustive review and application of exclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires for subjective validation, with “face” being the most common validity type tested, while “content” validity and “usability” were less prominent. Conclusions: A classification of subscales for testing face validity was derived from the studies. The Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire (CSRQ) was selected as the guide to follow for the development of future questionnaires related to subjective validation. Mislabeling of the validity tested in the studies due to ambiguous interpretations of the validity types was a common occurrence observed in the reviewed studies.
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
Health Informatics Journal
Health Informatics Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICAL INFORMATICS
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Informatics Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal. All papers submitted to Health Informatics Journal are subject to peer review by members of a carefully appointed editorial board. The journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.
期刊最新文献
Demonstrating the data integrity of routinely collected healthcare systems data for clinical trials (DEDICaTe): A proof-of-concept study AI and disability: A systematic scoping review Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for predicting diarrhea among under-five children in Ethiopia: Evidence from 2016 EDHS Machine learning approaches for asthma disease prediction among adults in Sri Lanka Artificial intelligence and health information: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of research
×
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