Cited by 485Surgical Simulation and TrainingSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareInnovations in Medical Education

Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training

Dawe, S R, Pena, G N, Windsor, J A, Broeders, J A J L, Cregan, P C, Hewett, P J, Maddern, G J·2014·British journal of surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training assumes that skills are directly transferable to the patient-based setting, but few studies have correlated simulated performance with surgical performance. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was undertaken to find studies published since the last systematic review, published in 2007. Inclusion of articles was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus decision. Studies that reported on the use of surgical simulation-based training and assessed the transferability of the acquired skills to a patient-based setting were included. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials and seven non-randomized comparative studies were included. Fourteen studies investigated laparoscopic procedures, 13 endoscopic procedures and seven other procedures. These studies provided strong evidence that participants who reached proficiency in simulation-based training performed better in the patient-based setting than their counterparts who did not have simulation-based training. Simulation-based training was equally as effective as patient-based training for colonoscopy, laparoscopic camera navigation and endoscopic sinus surgery in the patient-based setting. CONCLUSION: These studies strengthen the evidence that simulation-based training, as part of a structured programme and incorporating predetermined proficiency levels, results in skills transfer to the operative setting.

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.9482

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 485

Authors
Dawe, S. R., Pena, G. N., Windsor, J. A., Broeders, J. A. J. L., Cregan, P. C., Hewett, P. J., & Maddern, G. J.
Affiliations
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (AU)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Maddern, G J
Venue
British journal of surgery
Published
2014-05-15
Volume
101
Issue
9
Pages
1063-1076
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2043857563
Cited by
485
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 9
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British journal of surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
simulation-based training, skill transfer, surgical training, laparoscopic surgery, endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic sinus surgery, proficiency level
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Endoscopy, Humans, Laparoscopy, General Surgery, Transfer, Psychology

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