Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Aug 27;2013(8):CD006575.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub3.

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

Myura Nagendran  1 , Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rajesh Aggarwal, Marilena Loizidou, Brian R Davidson
Affiliations
Review

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

Myura Nagendran et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

Objectives: To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

Main results: We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

Authors' conclusions: Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality training versus no training, Outcome 1 Operating time.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality training versus no training, Outcome 2 Operating time (sensitivity analysis).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality training versus no training, Outcome 3 Operative performance.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Virtual reality training versus no training, Outcome 4 Operative performance (sensitivity analysis).
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Virtual reality training versus box‐trainer training, Outcome 1 Operative performance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Ahlberg 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA, et al. Proficiency‐based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. American Journal of Surgery 2007;193(6):797‐804. - PubMed
Grantcharov 2004 {published data only}
    1. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch‐Jensen P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. British Journal of Surgery 2004;91(2):146‐50. - PubMed
Hamilton 2002 {published data only}
    1. Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fleming JB, Rege RV, Laycock R, Bergen PC, et al. Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surgical Endoscopy 2002;16(3):406‐11. - PubMed
Hogle 2009 {published data only}
    1. Hogle NJ, Chang L, Strong VE, Welcome AO, Sinaan M, Bailey R, et al. Validation of laparoscopic surgical skills training outside the operating room: a long road. Surgical Endoscopy 2009;23:1476‐82. - PubMed
Larsen 2009 {published data only}
    1. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, et al. Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;338:b1802. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, et al. Impact of virtual reality training in laparoscopic gynaecology. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2009;107(Suppl 2):S237.
McClusky 2004 {published data only}
    1. McClusky DA, Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, Sickle KR, Baghai M, et al. Virtual reality training improves junior residents' operating room performance: results of a prospective, randomized, double‐blinded study of the complete laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2004;199(3):S73.
Sendag 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sendag F, Akdemir A, Bilgin O, Oztekin K. Virtual reality technology in laparoscopic surgical education. Gynecological Surgery 2009;6(1 Suppl):S83.
Seymour 2002 {published data only}
    1. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O'Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double‐blinded study. Annals of Surgery 2002;236(4):458‐64. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Banks 2007 {published data only}
    1. Banks EH, Chudnoff S, Karmin I, Wang C, Pardanani S. Does a surgical simulator improve resident operative performance of laparoscopic tubal ligation?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007;197(5):541 e1‐e5. - PubMed
Bensalah 2007 {published data only}
    1. Bensalah K, Lucas SM, Zeltser IS, Tuncel A, Jenkins A, Pearle MS, et al. Training on the virtual reality laparoscopic simulator improves laparoscopic performance in a virtual environment: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Endourology 2007;21:A137‐8.
    1. Zeltser IS, Bensalah K, Tuncel A, Lucas S, Jenkins A, Pearle MS, et al. Training on the virtual reality laparoscopic simulator improves performance of an unfamiliar live surgical laparoscopic procedure: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Endourology 2007;21:A137. - PubMed
Beyer 2011 {published data only}
    1. Beyer L, Troyer JD, Mancini J, Bladou F, Berdah SV, Karsenty G. Impact of laparoscopy simulator training on the technical skills of future surgeons in the operating room: a prospective study. American Journal of Surgery 2011;202:265‐72. - PubMed
Catalyud 2010 {published data only}
    1. Calatayud D, Arora S, Aggarwal R, Kruglikova I, Schulze S, Funch‐Jensen P, et al. Warm‐up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Annals of Surgery 2010;251(6):1181‐5. - PubMed
Cosman 2007 {published data only}
    1. Cosman PH, Hugh TJ, Shearer CJ, Merrett ND, Biankin AV, Cartmill JA. Skills acquired on virtual reality laparoscopic simulators transfer into the operating room in a blinded, randomised, controlled trial. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2007;125:76‐81. - PubMed
Gala 2009 {published data only}
    1. Gala RB, Orejuela F, Gerten K, Lockrow E, Schaffer J. An evaluation of validated laparoscopic skills simulators and the impact on operating room performance. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 2009;15(2):46‐7.
Gauger 2010 {published data only}
    1. Gauger PG, Hauge LS, Andreatta PB, Hamstra SJ, Hillard ML, Arble EP, et al. Laparoscopic simulation training with proficiency targets improves practice and performance of novice surgeons. American Journal of Surgery 2010;199(1):72‐80. - PubMed
Gobern 2010 {published data only}
    1. Gobern JM, Oliver KE, Gala RB, Chohan L, Kilpatrick CC, Orejuela FJ, et al. Correlation of fine motor skills testing with laparoscopic surgical skills in obstetrics and gynecology residents. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2010;1(6 Suppl):S70‐S71.
Grantcharov 2007 {published data only}
    1. Grantcharov TP. Virtual reality simulation in training and assessment of laparoscopic skills. European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007;21(12):197‐200.
Hamilton 2001 {published data only}
    1. Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Kapoor A, Nwariaku F, Bergen PC, Rege RV, et al. Improving operative performance using a laparoscopic hernia simulator. American Journal of Surgery 2001;182(6):725‐8. - PubMed
Howells 2008 {published data only}
    1. Howells NR, Gill HS, Carr AJ, Price AJ, Rees JL. Transferring simulated arthroscopic skills to the operating theatre: a randomised blinded study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 2008;90(4):494‐9. - PubMed
Lee 2012 {published data only}
    1. Lee J, Kahol K, Kerbl DC, Alipanah N, Hsueh TY, Mucksavage P, et al. Impact of pre‐operative warm‐up exercises on surgical performance in urology. Journal of Endourology 2010;24:A60.
    1. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Osann KE, Winfield HN, Kahol K, et al. Laparoscopic warm‐up exercises improve performance of senior‐level trainees during laparoscopic renal surgery. Journal of Endourology 2012;26(5):545‐50. - PMC - PubMed
Mohan 2009 {published data only}
    1. Mohan PVR, Chaudhry R. Laparoscopic simulators: Are they useful!. Medical Journal of the Armed Forces of India 2009;65(2):113‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Moldovanu 2011 {published data only}
    1. Moldovanu R, Tarcoveanu E, Dimofte G, Lupascu C, Bradea C. Preoperative warm‐up using a virtual reality simulator. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2011;15(4):533‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Orejuela 2010 {published data only}
    1. Orejuela F, Gerten K, Lockrow E, Noel KA, Chohan L, Kilpatrick CC, et al. An evaluation of validated laparoscopic skills simulators and the impact on operating room performance in obstetrics and gynecology residents. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 2010;16(2 Suppl):S7.
Orzech 2012 {published data only}
    1. Orzech N, Palter VN, Reznick RK, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP. A comparison of 2 ex vivo training curricula for advanced laparoscopic skills: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2012;255(5):833‐9. - PubMed
Palter 2011 {published data only}
    1. Palter VN, Grantcharov T, Harvey A, Macrae HM. Ex vivo technical skills training transfers to the operating room and enhances cognitive learning: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2011;253(5):886‐9. - PubMed
Palter 2012 {published data only}
    1. Palter VN, Grantcharov TP. Development and validation of a comprehensive curriculum to teach an advanced minimally invasive procedure: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2012;256(1):25‐32. - PubMed
Parent 2010 {published data only}
    1. Parent RJ, Plerhoples TA, Long EE, Zimmer DM, Teshome M, Mohr CJ, et al. Early, intermediate, and late effects of a surgical skills "boot camp" on an objective structured assessment of technical skills: a randomized controlled study. Journal of American College of Surgeons 2010;210(6):984‐9. - PubMed
Sroka 2010 {published data only}
    1. Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried GM. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room ‐ a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Surgery 2010;199(1):115‐20. - PubMed
Van Sickle 2008 {published data only}
    1. Sickle KR, Ritter EM, Baghai M, Goldenberg AE, Huang IP, Gallagher AG, et al. Prospective, randomized, double‐blind trial of curriculum‐based training for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. Journal of American College of Surgeons 2008;207(4):560‐8. - PubMed
Zendejas 2011 {published data only}
    1. Zendejas B, Cook DA, Bingener J, Huebner M, Dunn WF, Sarr MG, et al. Simulation‐based mastery learning improves patient outcomes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery 2011;254(3):502‐9. - PubMed
Zorn 2011 {published data only}
    1. Zorn KC. Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU International 2011;108(10):1657. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Neary 2008 {published data only}
    1. Neary P. Creating and implementing a proficiency‐based progression virtual reality training programme for higher surgical trainees for laparoscopic assisted sigmoid colectomy. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00752817 (accessed 15th December 2012).

References to ongoing studies

Aggarwal 2010 {published data only}
    1. Aggarwal R. An evaluation of the cost‐effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulation to shorten the learning curve for real laparoscopic procedures. www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN44012204 (accessed 15th December 2012).
Farley 2012 {published data only}
    1. Farley DR. Part vs whole task mastery simulation training for laparoscopic hernia repair: a randomized trial. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01629485 (accessed 15th December 2012).
Gala 2011 {published data only}
    1. Gala RB. An evaluation of validated laparoscopic skills simulators and the impact on operating room performance. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00555243 (accessed 15th December 2012).

Additional references

Babineau 2004
    1. Babineau TJ, Becker J, Gibbons G, Sentovich S, Hess D, Robertson S, et al. The "cost" of operative training for surgical residents. Archives of Surgical Research 2004;139(4):366‐70. - PubMed
Botden 2007
    1. Botden SM, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ. Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World Journal of Surgery 2007;31(4):764‐72. - PMC - PubMed
Bridges 1999
    1. Bridges M, Diamond DL. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. American Journal of Surgery 1999;177(1):28‐32. - PubMed
Brok 2008
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta‐analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61:763‐9. - PubMed
Brok 2009
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta‐analyses may be inconclusive ‐ Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):287‐98. - PubMed
Carter 2005
    1. Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis NK, Hanna GB, et al. Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surgical Endoscopy 2005;19(12):1523‐32. - PubMed
Chikwe 2004
    1. Chikwe J, Souza AC, Pepper JR. No time to train the surgeons. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2004;328(7437):418‐9. - PMC - PubMed
CTU 2011
    1. Copenhagen Trial Unit. TSA ‐ Trial Sequential Analysis. http://ctu.dk/tsa/ 2011 (accessed 20 August 2013).
Cyberware 2013
    1. Cyberware. Head & Face Color 3D Scanner. www.cyberware.com/products/scanners/ps.html (accessed 20 August 2013).
DeMets 1987
    1. DeMets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):341‐50. - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177‐88. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1997;315(7109):629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Farnworth 2001
    1. Farnworth LR, Lemay DE, Wooldridge T, Mabrey JD, Blaschak MJ, DeCoster TA, et al. A comparison of operative times in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between orthopaedic faculty and residents: the financial impact of orthopaedic surgical training in the operating room. Iowa Orthopedic Journal 2001;21:31‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Gaba 2004
    1. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2004;13 Suppl 1:i2‐i10. - PMC - PubMed
Gallagher 1999
    1. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Crothers I, Browning J. Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a preliminary assessment of minimally invasive surgical trainer virtual reality (MIST VR). Endoscopy 1999;31(4):310‐3. - PubMed
Gerson 2003
    1. Gerson LB, Dam J. A prospective randomized trial comparing a virtual reality simulator to bedside teaching for training in sigmoidoscopy. Endoscopy 2003;35(7):569‐75. - PubMed
Ghezzi 2006
    1. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Bergamini V, Uccella S, Beretta P, Franchi M, et al. Laparoscopic‐assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for the management of endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2006;13(2):114‐20. - PubMed
Gluud 2013
    1. Gluud C, Nikolova D, Klingenberg SL, Alexakis N, Als‐Nielsen B, Colli A, et al. Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: LIVER.
Greco 2010
    1. Greco EF, Regehr G, Okrainec A. Identifying and classifying problem areas in laparoscopic skills acquisition: can simulators help?. Academic Medicine 2010;85(10 Suppl):S5‐S8. - PubMed
Grober 2004
    1. Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR, Reznick RK, Matsumoto ED, Sidhu RS, et al. The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Annals of Surgery 2004;240(2):374‐81. - PMC - PubMed
Gurusamy 2009a
    1. Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, Davidson BR. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2009;96(4):342‐9. - PubMed
Haque 2006
    1. Haque S, Srinivasan S. A meta‐analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2006;10(1):51‐8. - PubMed
Heloury 1985
    1. Heloury Y, Leborgne J, Rogez JM, Robert R, Lehur PA, Pannier M, et al. Radiological anatomy of the bile ducts based on intraoperative investigation in 250 cases. Anatomia Clinica 1985;7(2):93‐102. - PubMed
Herrell 2005
    1. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve?. Urology 2005;66(5 Suppl):105‐7. - PubMed
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539‐58. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hyltander 2002
    1. Hyltander A, Liljegren E, Rhodin PH, Lonroth H. The transfer of basic skills learned in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room. Surgical Endoscopy 2002;16(9):1324‐8. - PubMed
ICH‐GCP 1997
    1. International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1, PA 19063‐2043, USA: Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997.
Izuishi 2005
    1. Izuishi K, Toyama Y, Nakano S, Goda F, Usuki H, Masaki T, et al. Preoperative assessment of the aberrant bile duct using multislice computed tomography cholangiography. American Journal of Surgery 2005;189(1):53‐5. - PubMed
Jaselskis 2013
    1. Jaselskis E, Andrle S, Anderson‐Wilk M, Bernard JE, Bryden M, Vance JM. Virtual reality and laser scanning applications. www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/vrls.pdf (accessed 20 August 2013).
Kauvar 2006
    1. Kauvar DS, Braswell A, Brown BD, Harnisch M. Influence of resident and attending surgeon seniority on operative performance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Journal of Surgical Research 2006;132(2):159‐63. - PubMed
Keus 2006
    1. Keus F, Jong JAF, Gooszen HG, Laarhoven CJHM. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006231] - DOI - PubMed
Kjaergard 2001
    1. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta‐analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982‐9. - PubMed
Lamah 1999
    1. Lamah M, Dickson GH. Congenital anatomical abnormalities of the extrahepatic biliary duct: a personal audit. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 1999;21(5):325‐7. - PubMed
Lundh 2012
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Macaskill 2001
    1. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001;20(4):641‐54. - PubMed
Madan 2005
    1. Madan AK, Frantzides CT, Tebbit C, Quiros RM. Participants' opinions of laparoscopic training devices after basic laparoscopic training course. American Journal of Surgery 2005;189(6):758‐61. - PubMed
Moher 1998
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta‐analyses?. Lancet 1998;352(9128):609‐13. - PubMed
Moorthy 2004
    1. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Jiwanji M, Bann S, Chang A, Darzi A. Validity and reliability of a virtual reality upper gastrointestinal simulator and cross validation using structured assessment of individual performance with video playback. Surgical Endoscopy 2004;18(2):328‐33. - PubMed
Munz 2004
    1. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K, Bann S, Darzi A. Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers: is one superior to the other?. Surgical Endoscopy 2004;18(3):485‐94. - PubMed
Newell 1992
    1. Newell DJ. Intention‐to‐treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(5):837‐41. - PubMed
Payne 2005
    1. Payne SR, Shaw MB. What impact will shortened training have on urological service delivery?. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2005;87(5):373‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Prabhu 2010
    1. Prabhu A, Smith W, Yurko Y, Acker C, Stefanidis D. Increased stress levels may explain the incomplete transfer of simulator‐acquired skill to the operating room. Surgery 2010;147(5):640‐5. - PubMed
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Royle 2003
    1. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003;19(4):591‐603. - PubMed
Salminen 2007
    1. Salminen PT, Hiekkanen HI, Rantala AP, Ovaska JT. Comparison of long‐term outcome of laparoscopic and conventional nissen fundoplication: a prospective randomized study with an 11‐year follow‐up. Annals of Surgery 2007;246(2):201‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Savovic 2012
    1. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(35):1‐82. - PubMed
Savovic 2012a
    1. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;157(6):429‐38. - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408‐12. - PubMed
Scott 2000
    1. Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, Valentine RJ, et al. Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience?. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000;191(3):272‐83. - PubMed
Sutherland 2006
    1. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, Hamdorf J, Cregan P, Scott D, et al. Surgical simulation ‐ A systematic review. Annals of Surgery 2006;243(3):291‐300. - PMC - PubMed
Tekkis 2005a
    1. Tekkis PP, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Remzi FH, Senagore AJ, Wu JS, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve in ileal pouch‐anal anastomosis surgery. Annals of Surgery 2005;241(2):262‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Tekkis 2005b
    1. Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW. Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right‐sided and left‐sided resections. Annals of Surgery 2005;242(1):83‐91. - PMC - PubMed
Thorlund 2009
    1. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):276‐86. - PubMed
Thorlund 2010
    1. Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta‐analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV‐infected individuals. Clinical Epidemiology 2010;2:57‐66. - PMC - PubMed
Thorlund 2011
    1. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf 2011 (accessed 20 August 2013).
Venkatesh 2007
    1. Venkatesh R, Belani JS, Chen C, Sundaram CP, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic and hand‐assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Urology 2007;70(5):873‐7. - PubMed
Watterson 2002
    1. Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Kuan JK, Denstedt JD. Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquisition of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. Journal of Urology 2002;168(5):1928‐32. - PubMed
Wetterslev 2008
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):64‐75. - PubMed
Wetterslev 2009
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random‐effects model meta‐analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009;9:86. - PMC - PubMed
Wilkiemeyer 2005
    1. Wilkiemeyer M, Pappas TN, Giobbie‐Hurder A, Itani KM, Jonasson O, Neumayer LA. Does resident post graduate year influence the outcomes of inguinal hernia repair?. Annals of Surgery 2005;241(6):879‐84. - PMC - PubMed
Wood 2008
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2008;336(7644):601‐5. [PUBMED: 18316340] - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Gurusamy 2008
    1. Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2008;95(9):1088‐97. [PUBMED: 18690637] - PubMed
Gurusamy 2009
    1. Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR. Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub2] - DOI - PubMed