Dataset Information

Expert and construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II endoscopy simulator for colonoscopy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to establish expert validity (a convincing realistic representation of colonoscopy according to experts) and construct validity (the ability to discriminate between different levels of expertise) of the Simbionix GI Mentor II virtual reality (VR) simulator for colonoscopy tasks, and to assess the didactic value of the simulator, as judged by experts. METHODS: Four groups were selected to perform one hand-eye coordination task (EndoBubble level 1) and two virtual colonoscopy simulations on the simulator; the levels were: novices (no endoscopy experience), intermediate experienced (<200 colonoscopies performed before), experienced (200-1,000 colonoscopies performed before), and experts (>1,000 colonoscopies performed before). All participants filled out a questionnaire about previous experience in flexible endoscopy and appreciation of the realism of the colonoscopy simulations. The average time to reach the cecum was defined as one of the main test parameters as well as the number of times view of the lumen was lost. RESULTS: Novices (N = 35) reached the cecum in an average time of 29:57 (min:sec), intermediate experienced (N = 15) in 5:45, experienced (N = 20) in 4:19 and experts (N = 35) in 4:56. Novices lost view of the lumen significantly more often compared to the other groups, and the EndoBubble task was also completed significantly faster with increasing experience (Kruskal Wallis Test, p < 0.001). The group of expert endoscopists rated the colonoscopy simulation as 2.95 on a four-point scale for overall realism. Expert opinion was that the GI Mentor II simulator should be included in the training of novice endoscopists (3.51). CONCLUSION: In this study we have demonstrated that the GI Mentor II simulator offers a convincing realistic representation of colonoscopy according to experts (expert validity) and that the simulator can discriminate between different levels of expertise (construct validity) in colonoscopy. According to experts the simulator should be implemented in the training programme of novice endoscopists.

SUBMITTER: Koch AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2169271 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a portable hip arthroscopy module in a regional orthopaedic unit.MethodsParticipants were recruited from a regional orthopaedic centre, and categorized into novice (0 arthroscopies), intermediate (1-29 arthroscopies), and expert (>50 arthroscopies) groups based on reported experience in arthroscopy. Face and content validity was evaluated by feedback from users immediately following completion of modules. Objective measurements, including time taken and subjective measurements consisting of simulation software metrics including, cam lesion locations attempts, scope strikes on bone, healthy bone burred, and cam lesion burred. Scores achieved by experts were recorded, and the median score was set at the level at which proficiency was demonstrated. Participant feedback on perceived educational use was collected following completion.ResultsIn total, 20 participant results were included for analysis. Good face and content validity was expressed by participants with previous arthroscopic experience. Number of scope strikes within the simulator-derived metrics accurately discerned between levels of experience. Novices had a mean of 5 strikes per attempt (SD ±5), intermediates a mean of 5.8 strikes (SD ± 4.1). There was a significant difference between expert and novice groups (P = .01), and expert and intermediate groups (P = .002). No significant difference between overall performance scores achieved by participants in expert, intermediate, and novice groups (62% ±19 vs 55% ±22 vs 50% ±23, P = .15). This demonstrates incomplete construct validity of the simulator software-derived metrics.ConclusionsThis hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrated acceptable face and content validity, with incomplete construct validity of simulator software metrics. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the module, highlighting that the addition of haptic feedback would be beneficial to improve procedural steps. Incorporation of tactile feedback to the modulator components would likely enable the software to accurately delineate between levels of experience.Clinical relevanceThis study demonstrates good face and content validity. The addition of haptic feedback in a hip arthroscopy simulator may improve learning.

Project description:Although colonoscopy is the accepted standard for detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers, many adenomas and some cancers are missed. To avoid interval colorectal cancer, the adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy needs to be reduced by improvement of colonoscopy technique and imaging capability. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy with those of standard forward-viewing colonoscopy.We did an international, multicentre, randomised trial at three sites in Israel, one site in the Netherlands, and two sites in the USA between Feb 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. Patients aged 18-70 years referred for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic assessment underwent same-day, back-to-back tandem colonoscopy with standard forward-viewing colonoscope and the full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscope. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with block size of 20, to which procedure was done first. The endoscopist was masked to group allocation until immediately before the start of colonoscopy examinations; patients were not masked. The primary endpoint was adenoma miss rates. We did per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01549535.197 participants were enrolled. 185 participants were included in the per-protocol analyses: 88 (48%) were randomly assigned to receive standard forward-viewing colonoscopy first, and 97 (52%) to receive full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy first. By per-lesion analysis, the adenoma miss rate was significantly lower in patients in the full-spectrum endoscopy group than in those in the standard forward-viewing procedure group: five (7%) of 67 vs 20 (41%) of 49 adenomas were missed (p<0·0001). Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy missed 20 adenomas in 15 patients; of those, three (15%) were advanced adenomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy missed five adenomas in five patients in whom an adenoma had already been detected with first-pass standard forward-viewing colonoscopy; none of these missed adenomas were advanced. One patient was admitted to hospital for colitis detected at colonoscopy, whereas five minor adverse events were reported including vomiting, diarrhoea, cystitis, gastroenteritis, and bleeding.Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a technology advancement for colonoscopy and could improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.EndoChoice.

Dataset Information

Expert and construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II endoscopy simulator for colonoscopy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets