Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 555

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Larsen, C. R, Soerensen, J. L, Grantcharov, T. P, Dalsgaard, T., Schouenborg, L., Ottosen, C., Schroeder, T. V, Ottesen, B. S·2009·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of virtual reality training on an actual laparoscopic operation. DESIGN: Prospective randomised controlled and blinded trial. SETTING: Seven gynaecological departments in the Zeeland region of Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 24 first and second year registrars specialising in gynaecology and obstetrics. INTERVENTIONS: Proficiency based virtual reality simulator training in laparoscopic salpingectomy and standard clinical education (controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was technical performance assessed by two independent observers blinded to trainee and training status using a previously validated general and task specific rating scale. The secondary outcome measure was operation time in minutes. RESULTS: The simulator trained group (n=11) reached a median total score of 33 points (interquartile range 32-36 points), equivalent to the experience gained after 20-50 laparoscopic procedures, whereas the control group (n=10) reached a median total score of 23 (22-27) points, equivalent to the experience gained from fewer than five procedures (P<0.001). The median total operation time in the simulator trained group was 12 minutes (interquartile range 10-14 minutes) and in the control group was 24 (20-29) minutes (P<0.001). The observers' inter-rater agreement was 0.79. CONCLUSION: Skills in laparoscopic surgery can be increased in a clinically relevant manner using proficiency based virtual reality simulator training. The performance level of novices was increased to that of intermediately experienced laparoscopists and operation time was halved. Simulator training should be considered before trainees carry out laparoscopic procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00311792.

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.b1802

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 555

Metadata

Authors
Larsen, C. R., Soerensen, J. L., Grantcharov, T. P., Dalsgaard, T., Schouenborg, L., Ottosen, C., Schroeder, T. V., & Ottesen, B. S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-05-14
Volume
338
Issue
may14 2
Pages
b1802-b1802
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2025018107
Cited by
555
References
16
FWCI
41.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.b1802
The paper
Larsen, C. R., Soerensen, J. L., Grantcharov, T. P., Dalsgaard, T., Schouenborg, L., Ottosen, C., Schroeder, T. V., & Ottesen, B. S. (2009). Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b1802

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.