Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

State of the Evidence on Simulation-Based Training for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Zendejas, Benjamin, Brydges, Ryan, Hamstra, Stanley J., Cook, David A.·2013·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Objective: Summarize the outcomes and best practices of simulation training for laparoscopic surgery. Background: Simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery has become a mainstay of surgical training. Much new evidence has accrued since previous reviews were published. Methods: We systematically searched the literature through May 2011 for studies evaluating simulation, in comparison with no intervention or an alternate training activity, for training health professionals in laparoscopic surgery. Outcomes were classified as satisfaction, skills (in a test setting) of time (to perform the task), process (eg, performance rating), product (eg, knot strength), and behaviors when caring for patients. We used random effects to pool effect sizes. Results: From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 219 eligible studies enrolling 7138 trainees, including 91 (42%) randomized trials. For comparisons with no intervention (n = 151 studies), pooled effect size (ES) favored simulation for outcomes of knowledge (1.18; N = 9 studies), skills time (1.13; N = 89), skills process (1.23; N = 114), skills product (1.09; N = 7), behavior time (1.15; N = 7), behavior process (1.22; N = 15), and patient effects (1.28; N = 1), all P < 0.05. When compared with nonsimulation instruction (n = 3 studies), results significantly favored simulation for outcomes of skills time (ES, 0.75) and skills process (ES, 0.54). Comparisons between different simulation interventions (n = 79 studies) clarified best practices. For example, in comparison with virtual reality, box trainers have similar effects for process skills outcomes and seem to be superior for outcomes of satisfaction and skills time. Conclusions: Simulation-based laparoscopic surgery training of health professionals has large benefits when compared with no intervention and is moderately more effective than nonsimulation instruction. We appraised the literature to summarize the outcomes and describe best practices of simulation training for laparoscopic surgery. Results show that simulation-based training in laparoscopic surgery provides large benefits when compared with no intervention and moderate benefits in comparison with nonsimulation instruction. Box trainers appear comparable with virtual reality simulators.

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.0b013e318288c40b

Cites

58 of 58 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

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

Show all 58 references

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Zendejas, B., Brydges, R., Hamstra, S. J., & Cook, D. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2013-04
Volume
257
Issue
4
Pages
586-593
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036966949
Cited by
388
References
58
FWCI
28.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: State of the Evidence on Simulation-Based Training for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e318288c40b
The paper
Zendejas, B., Brydges, R., Hamstra, S. J., & Cook, D. A. (2013). State of the Evidence on Simulation-Based Training for Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318288c40b

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.