Abbott, Eduardo F

Purpose Compare the effect of personalized feedback (PF) vs. task demonstration (TD), both delivered via video, on laparoscopic knot-tying skills and perceived workload; and evaluate the effect of repeated practice. Method General surgery interns and research fellows completed four repetitions of a simulated laparoscopic knot-tying task at one-month intervals. Midway between repetitions, participants received via e-mail either a TD video (demonstration by an expert) or a PF video (video of their own performance with voiceover from a blinded senior surgeon). Each participant received at least one video per format, with sequence randomly assigned. Outcomes included performance scores and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) scores. To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated practice, scores from these trainees on a separate delayed retention test were compared against historical controls who did not have scheduled repetitions. Results Twenty-one trainees completed the randomized study. Mean change in performance scores was significantly greater for those receiving PF (difference = 23.1 of 150 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0, 46.2], P = .05). Perceived workload was also significantly reduced (difference = −3.0 of 20 [95% CI: −5.8, −0.3], P = .04). Compared with historical controls (N = 93), the 21 with scheduled repeated practice had higher scores on the laparoscopic knot-tying assessment two weeks after the final repetition (difference = 1.5 of 10 [95% CI: 0.2, 2.8], P = .02). Conclusions Personalized video feedback improves trainees’ procedural performance and perceived workload compared with a task demonstration video. Brief monthly practice sessions support skill acquisition and retention.

Purpose To characterize reporting of P values, confidence intervals (CIs), and statistical power in health professions education research (HPER) through manual and computerized analysis of published research reports. Method The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL in May 2016, for comparative research studies. For manual analysis of abstracts and main texts, they randomly sampled 250 HPER reports published in 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015, and 100 biomedical research reports published in 1985 and 2015. Automated computerized analysis of abstracts included all HPER reports published 1970–2015. Results In the 2015 HPER sample, P values were reported in 69/100 abstracts and 94 main texts. CIs were reported in 6 abstracts and 22 main texts. Most P values (≥77%) were ≤.05. Across all years, 60/164 two-group HPER studies had ≥80% power to detect a between-group difference of 0.5 standard deviations. From 1985 to 2015, the proportion of HPER abstracts reporting a CI did not change significantly (odds ratio [OR] 2.87; 95% CI 1.04, 7.88) whereas that of main texts reporting a CI increased (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.39, 2.78). Comparison with biomedical studies revealed similar reporting of P values, but more frequent use of CIs in biomedicine. Automated analysis of 56,440 HPER abstracts found 14,867 (26.3%) reporting a P value, 3,024 (5.4%) reporting a CI, and increased reporting of P values and CIs from 1970 to 2015. Conclusions P values are ubiquitous in HPER, CIs are rarely reported, and most studies are underpowered. Most reported P values would be considered statistically significant.