评估显微手术培训方法在眼科教育中的效果:系统回顾与元分析》。

Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) Pub Date : 2021-12-05 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1740066
Geoffrey Nguyen, Jamie Palmer, Emilie Ludeman, Moran R Levin, Ramya Swamy, Janet Alexander
{"title":"评估显微手术培训方法在眼科教育中的效果:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Geoffrey Nguyen, Jamie Palmer, Emilie Ludeman, Moran R Levin, Ramya Swamy, Janet Alexander","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1740066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  The objective of our paper is to review all of the relevant literature in ophthalmology microsurgical education and identify which teaching methodologies were most effective. <b>Methods</b>  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE, were searched with preset terms. The search was through December 11, 2019. Eligibility criteria included studies with sufficient data for analyzing associations between surgical teaching techniques and success rates in surgical skills and the organization of the intervention as a microsurgical skills course, curriculum, or program. The articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Each included study was evaluated for quality using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing bias. <b>Data Extraction and Synthesis</b>  Data extraction was performed by two reviewers and disagreements were checked by a third reviewer. A random-effects analysis was used to pool the outcomes of studies. <b>Main Outcomes and Measures</b>  Outcomes included time for completion of surgical task, level of preparedness, competency score, and number of surgeries with complications. <b>Results</b>  A total of 439 studies were reviewed and 13 studies ( <i>n</i>  = 8,790 surgical cases; <i>n</i>  = 115 trainees) were included in the meta-analysis. Excluded articles studied cataract simulation training as the primary intervention or were not related to ophthalmology. All pooled results demonstrated a positive association with surgical outcomes; however, video-based education (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-4.63]; four effects [four studies]; <i>n</i>  = 69; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>  = 90%) and stepwise teaching method (odds ratio [OR = 3.84 [95% CI: 2.66-5.55]; six effects [six studies]; <i>n</i>  = 6,968; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>  = 39%) interventions were the most favorable. <b>Conclusion and Relevance</b>  The following five interventions evaluated in this paper were found to be effective methods of improving performance outcomes in ophthalmic microsurgery: (1) didactic lectures, (2) video-based education, (3) surgical wet-laboratory, (4) stepwise method, and (5) direct supervision and feedback. Our meta-analysis concludes that video-based education and stepwise teaching interventions are the most effective methods for a microsurgical ophthalmology training curriculum. Combining the strengths of the interventions analyzed in this study should be considered when implementing and adjusting ophthalmic surgical skills curriculums.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"13 2","pages":"e216-e227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bb/33/10-1055-s-0041-1740066.PMC9927993.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Efficacy of Microsurgical Training Methods in Ophthalmology Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey Nguyen, Jamie Palmer, Emilie Ludeman, Moran R Levin, Ramya Swamy, Janet Alexander\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1740066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  The objective of our paper is to review all of the relevant literature in ophthalmology microsurgical education and identify which teaching methodologies were most effective. <b>Methods</b>  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE, were searched with preset terms. The search was through December 11, 2019. Eligibility criteria included studies with sufficient data for analyzing associations between surgical teaching techniques and success rates in surgical skills and the organization of the intervention as a microsurgical skills course, curriculum, or program. The articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Each included study was evaluated for quality using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing bias. <b>Data Extraction and Synthesis</b>  Data extraction was performed by two reviewers and disagreements were checked by a third reviewer. A random-effects analysis was used to pool the outcomes of studies. <b>Main Outcomes and Measures</b>  Outcomes included time for completion of surgical task, level of preparedness, competency score, and number of surgeries with complications. <b>Results</b>  A total of 439 studies were reviewed and 13 studies ( <i>n</i>  = 8,790 surgical cases; <i>n</i>  = 115 trainees) were included in the meta-analysis. Excluded articles studied cataract simulation training as the primary intervention or were not related to ophthalmology. All pooled results demonstrated a positive association with surgical outcomes; however, video-based education (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-4.63]; four effects [four studies]; <i>n</i>  = 69; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>  = 90%) and stepwise teaching method (odds ratio [OR = 3.84 [95% CI: 2.66-5.55]; six effects [six studies]; <i>n</i>  = 6,968; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>  = 39%) interventions were the most favorable. <b>Conclusion and Relevance</b>  The following five interventions evaluated in this paper were found to be effective methods of improving performance outcomes in ophthalmic microsurgery: (1) didactic lectures, (2) video-based education, (3) surgical wet-laboratory, (4) stepwise method, and (5) direct supervision and feedback. Our meta-analysis concludes that video-based education and stepwise teaching interventions are the most effective methods for a microsurgical ophthalmology training curriculum. Combining the strengths of the interventions analyzed in this study should be considered when implementing and adjusting ophthalmic surgical skills curriculums.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"e216-e227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bb/33/10-1055-s-0041-1740066.PMC9927993.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本文旨在回顾眼科显微手术教育的所有相关文献,并确定哪些教学方法最有效。方法 对文献进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。使用预设术语检索了电子数据库,包括 Ovid MEDLINE、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 EMBASE。检索时间截至 2019 年 12 月 11 日。资格标准包括有足够数据用于分析外科教学技术与外科技能成功率之间的关联以及作为显微外科技能课程、课程或项目的干预组织的研究。文章由两位作者独立审阅。采用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)对纳入的每项研究进行质量评估,并采用 Cochrane 协作组织的偏倚评估工具对偏倚风险进行评估。数据提取与综合 数据提取由两位审稿人完成,并由第三位审稿人检查分歧。研究结果采用随机效应分析法进行汇总。主要结果和测量结果包括完成手术任务的时间、准备程度、能力评分以及出现并发症的手术数量。结果 共审查了 439 项研究,13 项研究(n = 8790 例手术;n = 115 名学员)被纳入荟萃分析。排除了以白内障模拟训练为主要干预措施或与眼科无关的文章。所有汇总结果均显示与手术结果呈正相关;然而,基于视频的教育(标准化平均差 [SMD] = 2.49 [95% 置信区间 (CI):0.36-4.63];四项效应 [四项研究];n = 69;I 2 = 90%)和分步教学法(几率比 [OR = 3.84 [95% CI:2.66-5.55];六项效应 [六项研究];n = 6,968 ;I 2 = 39%)干预效果最好。结论和相关性 本文评估的以下五种干预措施被认为是提高眼科显微手术绩效的有效方法:(1) 说教式讲座,(2) 视频教育,(3) 手术湿实验室,(4) 循序渐进法,以及 (5) 直接监督和反馈。我们的荟萃分析得出结论,视频教学和分步教学干预是显微眼科手术培训课程中最有效的方法。在实施和调整眼科手术技能课程时,应考虑结合本研究分析的干预措施的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Evaluating the Efficacy of Microsurgical Training Methods in Ophthalmology Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective  The objective of our paper is to review all of the relevant literature in ophthalmology microsurgical education and identify which teaching methodologies were most effective. Methods  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE, were searched with preset terms. The search was through December 11, 2019. Eligibility criteria included studies with sufficient data for analyzing associations between surgical teaching techniques and success rates in surgical skills and the organization of the intervention as a microsurgical skills course, curriculum, or program. The articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Each included study was evaluated for quality using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing bias. Data Extraction and Synthesis  Data extraction was performed by two reviewers and disagreements were checked by a third reviewer. A random-effects analysis was used to pool the outcomes of studies. Main Outcomes and Measures  Outcomes included time for completion of surgical task, level of preparedness, competency score, and number of surgeries with complications. Results  A total of 439 studies were reviewed and 13 studies ( n  = 8,790 surgical cases; n  = 115 trainees) were included in the meta-analysis. Excluded articles studied cataract simulation training as the primary intervention or were not related to ophthalmology. All pooled results demonstrated a positive association with surgical outcomes; however, video-based education (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-4.63]; four effects [four studies]; n  = 69; I 2  = 90%) and stepwise teaching method (odds ratio [OR = 3.84 [95% CI: 2.66-5.55]; six effects [six studies]; n  = 6,968; I 2  = 39%) interventions were the most favorable. Conclusion and Relevance  The following five interventions evaluated in this paper were found to be effective methods of improving performance outcomes in ophthalmic microsurgery: (1) didactic lectures, (2) video-based education, (3) surgical wet-laboratory, (4) stepwise method, and (5) direct supervision and feedback. Our meta-analysis concludes that video-based education and stepwise teaching interventions are the most effective methods for a microsurgical ophthalmology training curriculum. Combining the strengths of the interventions analyzed in this study should be considered when implementing and adjusting ophthalmic surgical skills curriculums.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data. Self-Reported Perceptions of Preparedness among Incoming Ophthalmology Residents. The Matthew Effect: Prevalence of Doctor and Physician Parents among Ophthalmology Applicants. Gender Representation on North American Ophthalmology Societies' Governance Boards. The Big Data Gap: Asymmetric Information in the Ophthalmology Residency Match Process and the Argument for Transparent Residency Data.
×
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