Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Objective assessment of technical surgical skills

Open access
van Hove, P D, Tuijthof, G J M, Verdaasdonk, E G G, Stassen, L P S, Dankelman, J·2010·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Surgeons are increasingly being scrutinized for their performance and there is growing interest in objective assessment of technical skills. The purpose of this study was to review all evidence for these methods, in order to provide a guideline for use in clinical practice. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science for studies addressing the validity and reliability of methods for objective skills assessment within surgery and gynaecology only. The studies were assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels of evidence. Results: In total 104 studies were included, of which 20 (19·2 per cent) had a level of evidence 1b or 2b. In 28 studies (26·9 per cent), the assessment method was used in the operating room. Virtual reality simulators and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) have been studied most. Although OSATS is seen as the standard for skills assessment, only seven studies, with a low level of evidence, addressed its use in the operating room. Conclusion: Based on currently available evidence, most methods of skills assessment are valid for feedback or measuring progress of training, but few can be used for examination or credentialing. The purpose of the assessment determines the choice of method.

Overview

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.7115

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 495

Metadata

Authors
van Hove, P. D., Tuijthof, G. J. M., Verdaasdonk, E. G. G., Stassen, L. P. S., & Dankelman, J.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2010-05-14
Volume
97
Issue
7
Pages
972-987
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1990352175
Cited by
495
References
0
FWCI
28.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.7115
The paper
van Hove, P. D., Tuijthof, G. J. M., Verdaasdonk, E. G. G., Stassen, L. P. S., & Dankelman, J. (2010). Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7115

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.