Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 651

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery

Open access
Moorthy, Krishna, Munz, Yaron, Sarker, Sudip K, Darzi, Ara·2003·BMJ

Abstract

In the past few years, considerable developments have been made in the objective assessment of technical proficiency of surgeons. Technical skills should be assessed during training, and various methods have been developed for this purpose

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 · 10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1032

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 651

Metadata

Authors
Moorthy, K., Munz, Y., Sarker, S. K., & Darzi, A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-10-30
Volume
327
Issue
7422
Pages
1032-1037
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2032955900
Cited by
651
References
0
FWCI
19.74
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 skills in surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1032
The paper
Moorthy, K., Munz, Y., Sarker, S. K., & Darzi, A. (2003). Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1032

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.