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
. 2014 Feb 21;9(2):e89224.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089224. eCollection 2014.

The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review

Weiguang Qiao  1 , Yang Bai  1 , Ruxi Lv  2 , Wendi Zhang  1 , Yuqing Chen  1 , Shan Lei  1 , Fachao Zhi  1
Affiliations
Review

The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review

Weiguang Qiao et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Advances in virtual endoscopy simulators have paralleled an interest in medical simulation for gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

Objective: The primary objective was to determine whether the virtual endoscopy simulator training could improve the performance of novices.

Design: A systematic review.

Setting: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside teaching or any other intervention for novices were collected.

Patients: Novice endoscopists.

Interventions: The PRISMA statement was followed during the course of the research. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched (up to July 2013). Data extraction and assessment were independently performed.

Main outcome measurements: Independent procedure completion, total procedure time and required assistance.

Results: Fifteen studies (n = 354) were eligible for inclusion: 9 studies designed for colonoscopy training, 6 for gastroscopy training. For gastroscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in control group (1 study; 22 participants; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P<0.0001). For colonoscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in control group (7 study; 163 participants; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.37; P = 0.41; I(2) = 85%).

Limitations: The included studies are quite in-homogeneous with respect to training schedule and procedure.

Conclusions: Virtual endoscopy simulator training might be effective for gastroscopy, but so far no data is available to support this for colonoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection for the systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary.
Yellow circles, green circles, and red circles indicate “unclear risk of bias,” “low risk of bias,” and “high risk of bias,” respectively.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: procedure completed independently for gastroscopy.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: total procedure time (sec) for gastroscopy.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: required assistance for gastroscopy.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: procedure completed independently for colonoscopy.
Figure 8
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: total procedure time (min) for colonoscopy.
Figure 9
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: required assistance for colonoscopy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bini EJ, Firoozi B, Choung RJ, Ali EM, Osman M, et al. (2003) Systematic evaluation of complications related to endoscopy in a training setting: A prospective 30-day outcomes study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 57: 8–16. - PubMed
    1. Wexner SD, Garbus JE, Singh JJ (2001) A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies. Reevaluation of credentialing guidelines. Surgical endoscopy 15: 251–61. - PubMed
    1. Radaelli F, Minoli G (2007) Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: further information from a large prospective Italian survey. Gastroenterology 133: 1390–1; author reply 2. - PubMed
    1. McCashland T, Brand R, Lyden E, de Garmo P (2000) The time and financial impact of training fellows in endoscopy. CORI Research Project. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. The American journal of gastroenterology 95: 3129–32. - PubMed
    1. Maiss J, Naegel A, Hochberger J (2011) The European experience–current use of simulator training in Europe. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 13: 126–31.

Grants and funding

These authors have no support or funding to report.