The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Objective assessment of technical surgical skills
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery
Birkmeyer, J. D., Finks, J. F., O'Reilly, A., Oerline, M., Carlin, A. M., Nunn, A. R., Dimick, J., Banerjee, M., & Birkmeyer, N. J. O. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1300625 · Cited by 1,504
Khan, K. Z., Ramachandran, S., Gaunt, K., & Pushkar, P. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.818634 · Cited by 490
Niitsu, H., Hirabayashi, N., Yoshimitsu, M., Mimura, T., Taomoto, J., Sugiyama, Y., Murakami, S., Saeki, S., Mukaida, H., & Takiyama, W. (2013) · Surgery Today · doi:10.1007/s00595-012-0313-7 · Cited by 280
Kassahun, Y., Yu, B., Tibebu, A. T., Stoyanov, D., Giannarou, S., Metzen, J. H., & Vander Poorten, E. (2016) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-015-1305-z · Cited by 238
McCullough, M., Campbell, A., Siu, A., Durnwald, L., Kumar, S., Magee, W. P., & Swanson, J. (2018) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-017-4205-2 · Cited by 47
“The general technical skill section was adapted directly from the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), a validated instrument in multiple specialties of surgery [17].”
Method
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.