Cited by 148Surgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical EducationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on the Impact of Proficiency-based Progression Simulation Training on Performance Outcomes

Open access

Abstract

Objective: To analyze all published prospective, randomized, and blinded clinical studies on the proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using objective performance metrics. Background: The benefit of PBP methodology to learning clinical skills in comparison to conventional training is not settled. Methods: Search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from inception to 1st March 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results were pooled using biased corrected standardized mean difference and ratio-of-means. Summary effects were evaluated using a series of fixed and random effects models. The primary outcome was the number of procedural errors performed comparing PBP and non-PBP-based training pathways. Secondary outcomes were the number of procedural steps completed and the time to complete the task/procedure. Results: From the initial pool of 468 studies, 12 randomized clinical studies with a total of 239 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the non-PBP training, ratio-of-means results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 60% ( P < 0.001) and procedural time by 15% ( P = 0.003) and increased the number of steps performed by 47% ( P < 0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that PBP training in comparison to conventional or quality assured training improved trainees’ performances, by decreasing procedural errors and procedural time, while increasing the number of correct steps taken when compared to standard simulation-based training.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0000000000004650

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mazzone, E., Puliatti, S., Amato, M., Bunting, B., Rocco, B., Montorsi, F., Mottrie, A., & Gallagher, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
  • Mazzone, Elio
  • Montorsi, Francesco
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2020-12-22
Volume
274
Issue
2
Pages
281-289
ISSN
  • 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1140
OpenAlex
W3115401297
Cited by
148
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 6
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
proficiency-based progression, simulation-based training, procedural training, procedural errors, procedure time, skill acquisition, surgical training
MeSH terms
Simulation Training, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Feedback, Humans, General Surgery

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