Development and validation of a recommended checklist for assessment of surgical videos quality: the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool.
Guidelines
Laparoscopic surgery
Minimally invasive surgery
Surgical training
Video assessment tool
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
19
12
2019
accepted:
26
03
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
1
7
2021
entrez:
8
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There has been a constant increase in the number of published surgical videos with preference for open-access sources, but the proportion of videos undergoing peer-review prior to publication has markedly decreased, raising questions over quality of the educational content presented. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a standard framework for the appraisal of surgical videos submitted for presentation and publication, the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. An international committee identified items for inclusion in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool and finalised the marking score utilising Delphi methodology. The tool was finally validated by anonymous evaluation of selected videos by a group of validators not involved in the tool development. 9 items were included in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool, with every item scoring from 0 (item not presented in the video) to 2 (item extensively presented in the video), with a total marking score ranging from 0 to 18. The LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool resulted highly accurate in identifying and selecting videos for acceptance for conference presentation and publication, with high level of internal consistency and generalisability. We propose that peer review in adherence to the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool could enhance the overall quality of published video outputs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32253556
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07517-4
pii: 10.1007/s00464-020-07517-4
pmc: PMC7886732
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1362-1369Références
Abdelsattar JM, Pandian TK, Finnesgard EJ et al (2015) Do you see what I see? How we use video as an adjunct to general surgery resident education. J Surg Educ 72(6):e145–e150
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.07.012
Gorin MA, Kava BR, Leveillee RJ (2011) Video demonstrations as an intraoperative teaching aid for surgical assistants. Eur Urol 59(2):306–307
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.043
Rocco B, Grasso AAC, De Lorenzis E et al (2018) Live surgery: highly educational or harmful? World J Urol 36(2):171–175
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2118-1
Celentano V, Browning M, Hitchins C et al (2017) Training value of laparoscopic colorectal videos on the World Wide Web: a pilot study on the educational quality of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy videos. Surg Endosc 31(11):4496–4504
doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5504-2
Stahel PF, Moore EE (2014) Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med 12:179
doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1
Celentano V, Smart N, Cahill RA et al (2018) Use of laparoscopic videos amongst surgical trainees in the United Kingdom. Surgeon 17:334
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2018.10.004
Celentano V, Smart N, Cahill R et al (2018) LAP-VEGaS practice guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery: a joint trainers and trainees consensus statement. Ann Surg 268(6):920–926
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002725
Coleman M, Rockall T (2013) Teaching of laparoscopic surgery colorectal. The Lapco model. Cir Esp 91:279–280
doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.11.005
Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Carter F et al (2011) Development, validation and implementation of a monitoring tool for training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the English National Training Program. Surg Endosc 25(4):1136–1142
doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1329-y
Mackenzie H, Ni M, Miskovic D et al (2015) Clinical validity of consultant technical skills assessment in the English National Training Programme for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Br J Surg 102(8):991–997
doi: 10.1002/bjs.9828
Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM et al (2013) Is competency assessment at the specialist level achievable? A study for the national training programme in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Ann Surg 257:476–482
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318275b72a
Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading
Varela-Ruiz M, Díaz-Bravo L, García-Durán R (2012) Description and uses of the Delphi method for research in the healthcare area. Inv Ed Med 1(2):90–95
Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293
doi: 10.1126/science.3287615
Youden WJ (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3(1):32–35
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3
Brennan RL (2001) Generalizability theory. Springer, New York
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3456-0
Langerman A, Grantcharov TP (2017) Are we ready for our close-up? Why and how we must embrace video in the OR. Ann Surg 266(6):934–936
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002232
Health On the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). https://www.healthonnet.org/ . Accessed 1 July 2019
Simera DG, Altman DM et al (2008) Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR Network's survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med 5(6):e139
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–34
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Ritter EM (2018) Invited editorial LAP-VEGaS practice guidelines for video-based education in surgery: content is just the beginning. Ann Surg 268(6):927–929
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003041
Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C (2010) The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 24:3149–3155
doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1108-9
Mahendran B, Caiazzo A et al (2019) Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): are we doing it for the right indication? An assessment of the external validity of published online video resources. Int J Colorectal Dis 34(10):1823–1826
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03377-0
Mahid SS, Qadan M, Hornung CA, Galandiuk S (2008) Assessment of publication bias for the surgeon scientist. Br J Surg 95(8):943–949
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6302
Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267:374–378
doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036