Premium
A systematic review of validated sinus surgery simulators
Author(s) -
Stew B.,
Kao S.S.T.,
Dharmawarda.,
Ooi E.H.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.13052
Subject(s) - medicine , construct validity , systematic review , face validity , medical physics , cinahl , medline , construct (python library) , meta analysis , data extraction , surgery , computer science , psychometrics , patient satisfaction , pathology , clinical psychology , psychiatry , political science , psychological intervention , law , programming language
Background Simulation provides a safe and effective opportunity to develop surgical skills. A variety of endoscopic sinus surgery ( ESS ) simulators has been described in the literature. Validation of these simulators allows for effective utilisation in training. Objective of review To conduct a systematic review of the published literature to analyse the evidence for validated ESS simulation. Search strategy Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Cinahl were searched from inception of the databases to 11 January 2017. Evaluation method Twelve thousand five hundred and sixteen articles were retrieved of which 10 112 were screened following the removal of duplicates. Thirty‐eight full‐text articles were reviewed after meeting search criteria. Evidence of face, content, construct, discriminant and predictive validity was extracted. Results Twenty articles were included in the analysis describing 12 ESS simulators. Eleven of these simulators had undergone validation: 3 virtual reality, 7 physical bench models and 1 cadaveric simulator. Seven of the simulators were shown to have face validity, 7 had construct validity and 1 had predictive validity. None of the simulators demonstrated discriminate validity. Conclusion This systematic review demonstrates that a number of ESS simulators have been comprehensively validated. Many of the validation processes, however, lack standardisation in outcome reporting, thus limiting a meta‐analysis comparison between simulators.