Cited by 274Surgical Simulation and TrainingHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyInnovations in Medical Education

Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons' intraoperative cognitive workload

Open access
Dias, R D, Ngo-Howard, M C, Boskovski, M T, Zenati, M A, Yule, S J·2018·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Surgeons in the operating theatre deal constantly with high-demand tasks that require simultaneous processing of a large amount of information. In certain situations, high cognitive load occurs, which may impact negatively on a surgeon's performance. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the different methods used to assess surgeons' cognitive load, and a critique of the reliability and validity of current assessment metrics. Methods: A search strategy encompassing MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, PROSPERO and the Cochrane database was developed to identify peer-reviewed articles published from inception to November 2016. Quality was assessed by using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). A summary table was created to describe study design, setting, specialty, participants, cognitive load measures and MERSQI score. Results: Of 391 articles retrieved, 84 met the inclusion criteria, totalling 2053 unique participants. Most studies were carried out in a simulated setting (59 studies, 70 per cent). Sixty studies (71 per cent) used self-reporting methods, of which the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) was the most commonly applied tool (44 studies, 52 per cent). Heart rate variability analysis was the most used real-time method (11 studies, 13 per cent). Conclusion: Self-report instruments are valuable when the aim is to assess the overall cognitive load in different surgical procedures and assess learning curves within competence-based surgical education. When the aim is to assess cognitive load related to specific operative stages, real-time tools should be used, as they allow capture of cognitive load fluctuation. A combination of both subjective and objective methods might provide optimal measurement of surgeons' cognition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.10795

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [51]Ericsson KA Simon HA Verbal Reports as Data Psychological Review 1980 87 3 215 251

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dias, R. D., Ngo-Howard, M. C., Boskovski, M. T., Zenati, M. A., & Yule, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Yule, S J
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2018-02-21
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
491-501
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2793138952
Cited by
273
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British journal of surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL126896-01A)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
mental workload, surgeons, NASA-TLX, heart rate variability, self-report measures, real-time physiological monitoring, surgical simulation, learning curve, surgical training, reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Cognition, Humans, Workload, Self Report, Surgeons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review