Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators – a systematic review
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Little is known on how best to train the future generation of robotic surgeons. It has been postulated that virtual reality (VR) simulators may aid the progression along the learning curve for this rapidly developing surgical technique w...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international Jg. 111; H. 2; S. 194 - 205 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Oxford
Wiley-Blackwell
01.02.2013
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1464-4096, 1464-410X, 1464-410X |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
Little is known on how best to train the future generation of robotic surgeons. It has been postulated that virtual reality (VR) simulators may aid the progression along the learning curve for this rapidly developing surgical technique within a safe training environment. There are several simulators available on the market, the best known is that developed by Intuitive Surgical Inc.
The present study provides the first systematic review of all the trails of the various VR robotic platforms. It explores the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the various platforms for feasibility, reliability, validity, acceptability, educational impact and cost‐effectiveness. This article also highlights the deficiencies and future work required to advance robotic surgical training.
To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and PsycINFO® databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost‐effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; ‘expert’ and ‘novice’. Experts ranged in experience from 21–2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV‐Trainer®, ProMIS®, SimSurgery Educational Platform® (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost‐effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer, ProMIS, SimSurgery Educational Platform (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer(®), ProMIS(®), SimSurgery Educational Platform(®) (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery.To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer(®), ProMIS(®), SimSurgery Educational Platform(®) (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery. To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer(®), ProMIS(®), SimSurgery Educational Platform(®) (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Little is known on how best to train the future generation of robotic surgeons. It has been postulated that virtual reality (VR) simulators may aid the progression along the learning curve for this rapidly developing surgical technique within a safe training environment. There are several simulators available on the market, the best known is that developed by Intuitive Surgical Inc. The present study provides the first systematic review of all the trails of the various VR robotic platforms. It explores the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the various platforms for feasibility, reliability, validity, acceptability, educational impact and cost‐effectiveness. This article also highlights the deficiencies and future work required to advance robotic surgical training. To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and PsycINFO® databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost‐effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; ‘expert’ and ‘novice’. Experts ranged in experience from 21–2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV‐Trainer®, ProMIS®, SimSurgery Educational Platform® (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost‐effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery. |
| Author | Aboumarzouk, Omar Abboudi, Hamid Dasgupta, Prokar Ahmed, Kamran Khan, Mohammed S. Challacombe, Ben Guru, Khurshid A. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Hamid surname: Abboudi fullname: Abboudi, Hamid organization: Guy's Hospital – sequence: 2 givenname: Mohammed S. surname: Khan fullname: Khan, Mohammed S. organization: Guy's Hospital – sequence: 3 givenname: Omar surname: Aboumarzouk fullname: Aboumarzouk, Omar organization: Aberdeen Royal Infirmary – sequence: 4 givenname: Khurshid A. surname: Guru fullname: Guru, Khurshid A. organization: Roswell Park Cancer Institute – sequence: 5 givenname: Ben surname: Challacombe fullname: Challacombe, Ben organization: Guy's Hospital – sequence: 6 givenname: Prokar surname: Dasgupta fullname: Dasgupta, Prokar organization: Guy's Hospital – sequence: 7 givenname: Kamran surname: Ahmed fullname: Ahmed, Kamran organization: Guy's Hospital |
| BackLink | http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26906147$$DView record in Pascal Francis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22672340$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqNkc9OGzEQxq0KVP6-ArJUVeolwfZu7M0FqURtASFxACRu1sRrV4521-DxArn1HfqGfZJ6QwISJ3zxaOY3M5_m2yNbXegsIZSzMc_veDHmpSxHJWd3Y8G4yFmh2Pj5E9l9LWxtYjaVO2QPccFYTsjJZ7IjhFSiKNkuuZ71MdouUUyQeqTB0UdofA3Jh466EGkM85C8odjH3zYuKfq2byCFiPTfn78UKC4x2RYGJtpHb58OyLaDBu3h-t8ntz9_3MzORpdXv85n3y9HplQVG1k3BVWLSeVASqagUCBNZeosHqqskFXFVMi5qSdOACie1dc5cHMHXLjCFvvk28vc-xgeeotJtx6NbRrobOhRc1GJqpCKsYx-eYcuQh-7rG5FCSnyrkwdral-3tpa30ffQlzqzbky8HUNABpoXITOeHzj5JRJXqrMnbxwJgbEaJ02Pq1OmiL4RnOmBx_1Qg8W6cEuPfioVz7q5zygejdgs-MDrevdT76xyw_36dOL21VY_AeIc7U6 |
| CODEN | BJINFO |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_015_4517_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_019_00934_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_016_4934_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_hansur_2017_03_002 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_015_0508_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijsu_2013_11_012 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_015_0513_4 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_1631 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_juro_2016_01_131 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_017_5460_x crossref_primary_10_1097_CORR_0000000000001262 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2017_11_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2014_01_013 crossref_primary_10_3171_2015_1_JNS141583 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijscr_2025_111215 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euf_2017_03_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2015_11_009 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00423_017_1623_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10055_023_00891_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_022_01475_w crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_1525 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_13320 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11695_014_1370_3 crossref_primary_10_1002_lary_27425 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijsu_2013_08_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2015_08_010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2015_08_016 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2015_0561 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_024_02076_5 crossref_primary_10_1177_1753193417754179 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2020_0441 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10055_020_00469_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_019_00926_1 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2020_0445 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eururo_2015_11_026 crossref_primary_10_1080_10376178_2016_1195237 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2014_0041 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_023_01679_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogoh_2017_12_004 crossref_primary_10_1179_1743132814Y_0000000405 crossref_primary_10_1227_NEU_0000000000000116 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2019_06_015 crossref_primary_10_1089_gyn_2023_0042 crossref_primary_10_1136_postgradmedj_2016_134701 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_013_0403_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13304_017_0509_x crossref_primary_10_1002_hed_25033 crossref_primary_10_1227_NEU_0000000000000074 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_nedt_2019_05_026 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2016_12_008 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fertnstert_2014_08_028 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2017_03_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2025_07_007 crossref_primary_10_1097_JS9_0000000000000468 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_024_10915_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_surg_2013_06_023 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urolvj_2022_100191 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2013_11_004 crossref_primary_10_1080_10401334_2014_979181 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12657 crossref_primary_10_1097_TA_0000000000003569 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2014_08_003 crossref_primary_10_1109_THMS_2020_3016084 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_013_3393_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2017_06_160 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_2075 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2017_07_047 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_016_5090_8 crossref_primary_10_31908_19098367_3811 crossref_primary_10_3390_robotics11030057 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2020_1037 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_016_4970_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2014_07_014 crossref_primary_10_1097_IGC_0000000000000879 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_13511 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_013_3387_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2016_10_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tele_2018_04_001 crossref_primary_10_1051_sicotj_2015039 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13193_014_0314_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_019_0947_8 crossref_primary_10_1093_neurosurgery_73_suppl_1_S57 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_017_5620_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2016_10_015 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2013_0454 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_014_0490_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_athoracsur_2024_12_003 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbusres_2018_10_055 crossref_primary_10_1080_17476348_2018_1448270 crossref_primary_10_1097_PPO_0b013e31828bf822 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10269_016_2621_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12558 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jss_2013_06_054 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12714 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2016_0508 crossref_primary_10_1097_SLA_0000000000001699 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euf_2016_02_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euros_2023_04_008 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11760_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_021_01302_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_surge_2023_02_006 crossref_primary_10_1097_MOU_0000000000000687 crossref_primary_10_1109_TBME_2017_2706499 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2019_0541 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2013_09_005 crossref_primary_10_1109_TE_2015_2456176 crossref_primary_10_1111_ases_12087 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12704 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urolonc_2016_12_001 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_016_0614_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijsu_2014_11_033 crossref_primary_10_1111_iju_12993 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12721 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12842 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_scrs_2016_04_002 crossref_primary_10_1097_JP9_0000000000000050 crossref_primary_10_3390_brainsci15090936 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm13020611 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0263574722001175 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0195053 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2015_06_008 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2018_08_017 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_025_02559_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wneu_2013_09_040 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2020_07_021 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_020_08197_w crossref_primary_10_1053_j_scrs_2018_11_013 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_12974 crossref_primary_10_1177_2051415817722933 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_023_10510_2 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_1740 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_016_5240_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jsurg_2013_10_006 crossref_primary_10_1089_lap_2021_0082 crossref_primary_10_1002_rcs_2040 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_022_09520_3 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2015_0620 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2014_0810 crossref_primary_10_1080_00140139_2017_1298845 crossref_primary_10_1111_iju_13704 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00464_015_4607_x crossref_primary_10_1109_THMS_2017_2776603 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/S0022-5347(09)62294-1 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.872 10.1007/s004640000233 10.1016/S0022-5347(09)62293-X 10.1097/01.sla.0000217618.30744.61 10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.940 10.1007/s00464-008-9900-5 10.1097/01.sla.0000186298.79308.a8 10.1089/end.2009.0190 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.064 10.1097/01.sla.0000219641.79092.e5 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.044 10.1038/nrcardio.2009.155 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2684 10.1089/end.2010.0220 10.1007/s11864-007-0028-y 10.1007/s00464-008-9894-z 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1438 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.10.020 10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.023 10.1308/003588411X12851639108358 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09694.x 10.1089/end.2008.0250 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10060.x 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04221-5 10.1136/bmj.b2700 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08997.x 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.069 10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.08.008 10.1007/BF00596229 10.1007/s00464-008-0066-y 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04007.x |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2012 BJU International 2014 INIST-CNRS 2012 BJU International. BJUI © 2013 BJU International |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2012 BJU International – notice: 2014 INIST-CNRS – notice: 2012 BJU International. – notice: BJUI © 2013 BJU International |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION IQODW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QP 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Pascal-Francis Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Education |
| EISSN | 1464-410X |
| EndPage | 205 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 2877071081 22672340 26906147 10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11270_x BJU11270 |
| Genre | regionalReview Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – fundername: Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: MR/J006742/1 – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: G0600698 – fundername: Department of Health grantid: 2211 |
| GroupedDBID | --- .3N .55 .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 1OC 23N 24P 2WC 31~ 33P 36B 3O- 3SF 4.4 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52R 52S 52T 52U 52V 52W 52X 53G 5GY 5HH 5LA 5RE 5VS 66C 6P2 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A01 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHHS AAHQN AAIPD AAMNL AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAXRX AAYCA AAZKR ABCQN ABCUV ABDBF ABEML ABJNI ABLJU ABOCM ABPVW ABQWH ABXGK ACAHQ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGFS ACGOF ACMXC ACPOU ACPRK ACSCC ACUHS ACXBN ACXQS ADBBV ADBTR ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADXAS ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUQT AEUYR AFBPY AFEBI AFFNX AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFWVQ AFZJQ AHBTC AHMBA AIACR AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN ALVPJ AMBMR AMYDB ATUGU AZBYB AZVAB BAFTC BAWUL BFHJK BHBCM BMXJE BROTX BRXPI BY8 C45 CAG COF CS3 D-6 D-7 D-E D-F DCZOG DIK DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRMAN DRSTM DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EBC EBD EBS EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX EX3 F00 F01 F04 F5P FUBAC G-S G.N GODZA H.X HF~ HGLYW HZI HZ~ IHE IX1 J0M J5H K48 KBYEO LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRMAN MRSTM MSFUL MSMAN MSSTM MXFUL MXMAN MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ O66 O9- OIG OK1 OVD P2P P2W P2X P2Z P4B P4D PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 R.K RJQFR ROL RX1 SUPJJ SV3 TEORI TUS UB1 V9Y W8V W99 WBKPD WHWMO WIH WIJ WIK WOHZO WOW WQJ WRC WVDHM WXI WXSBR X7M XG1 YFH ZGI ZXP ~IA ~WT AAMMB AAYXX AEFGJ AEYWJ AGHNM AGXDD AGYGG AIDQK AIDYY AIQQE CITATION O8X IQODW CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QP 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4780-ef9a7d258fa6607a37a6c8cd410a8226083926bcd5f2aa71014d2aafbfa12f3e3 |
| IEDL.DBID | DRFUL |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 169 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000315030200007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
| IngestDate | Thu Oct 02 16:11:48 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 14:39:54 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:31:48 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 09:16:10 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 07:00:51 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:23:35 EST 2025 Wed Jan 22 16:47:15 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 2 |
| Keywords | Validation Nephrology training Review Robotics Urology Treatment Simulation Telemedicine Education Surgery Formation Simulator Bibliographic review |
| Language | English |
| License | CC BY 4.0 2012 BJU International. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4780-ef9a7d258fa6607a37a6c8cd410a8226083926bcd5f2aa71014d2aafbfa12f3e3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x |
| PMID | 22672340 |
| PQID | 1282262392 |
| PQPubID | 1026371 |
| PageCount | 12 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1282836700 proquest_journals_1282262392 pubmed_primary_22672340 pascalfrancis_primary_26906147 crossref_citationtrail_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11270_x crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11270_x wiley_primary_10_1111_j_1464_410X_2012_11270_x_BJU11270 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | February 2013 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2013-02-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2013 text: February 2013 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | Oxford |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Oxford – name: England – name: Edgecliff |
| PublicationTitle | BJU international |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BJU Int |
| PublicationYear | 2013 |
| Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Wiley-Blackwell – name: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
| References | 2009; 23 2007; 125 2010; 76 2012 2010; 19 2011 2009; 181 2010; 105 2010 2008 2010; 183 2009; 339 2008; 71 2001; 87 2004; 99 2011; 202 2011; 108 2009; 73 2011; 107 2010; 24 2005; 242 2011; 93 2007; 8 2010; 252 2009; 7 2001; 15 2009; 6 1996; 1 2008; 22 2011; 25 2011; 185 2008; 132 2001; 357 2006; 244 2006; 243 2011; 186 e_1_2_9_30_1 e_1_2_9_31_1 e_1_2_9_11_1 e_1_2_9_34_1 e_1_2_9_10_1 e_1_2_9_35_1 e_1_2_9_13_1 e_1_2_9_32_1 e_1_2_9_12_1 e_1_2_9_33_1 Fiedler MJ (e_1_2_9_29_1) 2007; 125 e_1_2_9_15_1 e_1_2_9_38_1 e_1_2_9_14_1 e_1_2_9_39_1 e_1_2_9_17_1 e_1_2_9_36_1 e_1_2_9_16_1 e_1_2_9_37_1 e_1_2_9_19_1 e_1_2_9_41_1 e_1_2_9_42_1 e_1_2_9_20_1 e_1_2_9_40_1 e_1_2_9_21_1 e_1_2_9_24_1 e_1_2_9_23_1 e_1_2_9_8_1 e_1_2_9_7_1 e_1_2_9_6_1 e_1_2_9_5_1 e_1_2_9_4_1 e_1_2_9_3_1 e_1_2_9_2_1 Meijden OA (e_1_2_9_18_1) 2010; 19 e_1_2_9_9_1 e_1_2_9_26_1 Lendvay TS (e_1_2_9_22_1) 2008; 132 e_1_2_9_25_1 e_1_2_9_28_1 e_1_2_9_27_1 |
| References_xml | – year: 2011 – volume: 186 start-page: 1019 year: 2011 end-page: 1024 article-title: Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator publication-title: J Urol – volume: 6 start-page: 659 year: 2009 end-page: 667 article-title: Assessment of specialists in cardiovascular practice publication-title: Nat Rev Cardiol – volume: 73 start-page: 1288 year: 2009 end-page: 1292 article-title: Face, content, and construct validity of dV‐trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery publication-title: Urology – volume: 99 start-page: 33 year: 2004 end-page: 37 article-title: Computer simulator training enhances the competency of gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy: results of a pilot study publication-title: Am J Gastroenterol – volume: 181 start-page: 823 issue: Suppl. year: 2009 article-title: Efficacy of Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) for the da Vinci Surgical System publication-title: J Urol – volume: 8 start-page: 197 year: 2007 end-page: 210 article-title: Evolution of robotic surgery in the treatment of localized prostate cancer publication-title: Curr Treat Options Oncol – volume: 24 start-page: 467 year: 2010 end-page: 472 article-title: Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? publication-title: J Endourol – volume: 23 start-page: 66 year: 2009 end-page: 73 article-title: Validated robotic laparoscopic surgical training in a virtual‐reality environment publication-title: Surg Endosc – volume: 181 start-page: 823 issue: Suppl. year: 2009 article-title: In‐vivo videos enhance cognitive skilla for da Vinci Surgical System publication-title: J Urol – volume: 1 start-page: 41 year: 1996 end-page: 67 article-title: The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications publication-title: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract – volume: 23 start-page: 503 year: 2009 end-page: 508 article-title: Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator publication-title: J Endourol – volume: 243 start-page: 854 year: 2006 end-page: 863 article-title: Laparoscopic skills are improved with LapMentor training: results of a randomized, double‐blinded study publication-title: Ann Surg – volume: 244 start-page: 139 year: 2006 end-page: 147 article-title: Surgical crisis management skills training and assessment: a simulation[corrected]‐based approach to enhancing operating room performance publication-title: Ann Surg – volume: 15 start-page: 1076 year: 2001 end-page: 1079 article-title: Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task publication-title: Surg Endosc – volume: 339 start-page: b2700 year: 2009 article-title: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration publication-title: BMJ – volume: 25 start-page: 345 year: 2011 end-page: 350 article-title: ProMIS can serve as a da Vinci simulator – a construct validity study publication-title: J Endourol – volume: 125 start-page: 127 year: 2007 end-page: 129 article-title: Virtual reality for robotic laparoscopic surgical training publication-title: Stud Health Technol Inform – volume: 7 start-page: 431 year: 2009 end-page: 440 article-title: Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments publication-title: Int J Surg – volume: 105 start-page: 1148 year: 2010 end-page: 1154 article-title: Initial experience of teaching robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons‐in‐training: can training be evaluated and standardized? publication-title: BJU Int – year: 2010 – volume: 76 start-page: 357 year: 2010 end-page: 360 article-title: Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator publication-title: Urology – year: 2012 – volume: 186 start-page: 26 year: 2011 end-page: 34 article-title: Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review publication-title: J Urol – volume: 71 start-page: 597 year: 2008 end-page: 601 article-title: Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate publication-title: Urology – volume: 107 start-page: 1130 year: 2011 end-page: 1135 article-title: Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator publication-title: BJU Int – volume: 23 start-page: 130 year: 2009 end-page: 139 article-title: Construct validity of the ProMIS laparoscopic simulator publication-title: Surg Endosc – volume: 132 start-page: 242 year: 2008 end-page: 244 article-title: VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV‐Trainer robotic simulator publication-title: Stud Health Technol Inform – volume: 19 start-page: 51 year: 2010 end-page: 58 article-title: The SEP ‘Robot’: a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the da vinci surgical system? publication-title: Surg Technol Int – volume: 252 start-page: 254 year: 2010 end-page: 262 article-title: Efficacy of the da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis publication-title: Ann Surg – volume: 185 start-page: e488 issue: Suppl. year: 2011 article-title: Face and construct validity assessment of 2nd generation robotic surgery simulator publication-title: J Urol – year: 2008 – volume: 22 start-page: 2301 year: 2008 end-page: 2309 article-title: Construct validation of a novel hybrid virtual‐reality simulator for training and assessing laparoscopic colectomy; results from the first course for experienced senior laparoscopic surgeons publication-title: Surg Endosc – volume: 93 start-page: 146 year: 2011 end-page: 150 article-title: Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot) publication-title: Ann R Coll Surg Engl – volume: 108 start-page: 1652 year: 2011 end-page: 1656 article-title: Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training publication-title: BJU Int – volume: 242 start-page: 631 year: 2005 end-page: 639 article-title: A human factors analysis of technical and team skills among surgical trainees during procedural simulations in a simulated operating theatre publication-title: Ann Surg – volume: 357 start-page: 945 year: 2001 end-page: 949 article-title: Assessment of clinical competence publication-title: Lancet – volume: 87 start-page: 408 year: 2001 end-page: 410 article-title: Robotically‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy publication-title: BJU Int – volume: 202 start-page: 469 year: 2011 end-page: 480 article-title: Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: a systematic review publication-title: Am J Surg – volume: 183 start-page: e515 issue: Suppl. year: 2010 article-title: Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance publication-title: J Urol – volume: 185 start-page: e593 issue: Suppl. year: 2011 article-title: Comparison of robotic surgery skill acquisition between DV‐Trainer and da Vinci surgical system: a randomized controlled study publication-title: J Urol – ident: e_1_2_9_16_1 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(09)62294-1 – ident: e_1_2_9_42_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_5_1 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e – ident: e_1_2_9_25_1 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.872 – ident: e_1_2_9_6_1 doi: 10.1007/s004640000233 – ident: e_1_2_9_15_1 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(09)62293-X – ident: e_1_2_9_38_1 doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000217618.30744.61 – volume: 19 start-page: 51 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_9_18_1 article-title: The SEP ‘Robot’: a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the da vinci surgical system? publication-title: Surg Technol Int – ident: e_1_2_9_19_1 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.940 – ident: e_1_2_9_35_1 doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9900-5 – ident: e_1_2_9_37_1 doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000186298.79308.a8 – ident: e_1_2_9_27_1 doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0190 – ident: e_1_2_9_28_1 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.064 – ident: e_1_2_9_7_1 doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000219641.79092.e5 – ident: e_1_2_9_24_1 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.044 – ident: e_1_2_9_11_1 doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2009.155 – ident: e_1_2_9_31_1 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2684 – ident: e_1_2_9_39_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_21_1 doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0220 – ident: e_1_2_9_40_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_4_1 doi: 10.1007/s11864-007-0028-y – ident: e_1_2_9_30_1 doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9894-z – ident: e_1_2_9_2_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x – ident: e_1_2_9_26_1 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1438 – ident: e_1_2_9_10_1 doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.10.020 – ident: e_1_2_9_36_1 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.023 – ident: e_1_2_9_17_1 doi: 10.1308/003588411X12851639108358 – ident: e_1_2_9_14_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09694.x – ident: e_1_2_9_23_1 doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0250 – ident: e_1_2_9_20_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10060.x – ident: e_1_2_9_9_1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04221-5 – ident: e_1_2_9_41_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_12_1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 – ident: e_1_2_9_32_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08997.x – ident: e_1_2_9_13_1 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.069 – volume: 132 start-page: 242 year: 2008 ident: e_1_2_9_22_1 article-title: VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV‐Trainer robotic simulator publication-title: Stud Health Technol Inform – ident: e_1_2_9_3_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.08.008 – ident: e_1_2_9_33_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00596229 – ident: e_1_2_9_34_1 doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0066-y – ident: e_1_2_9_8_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04007.x – volume: 125 start-page: 127 year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_9_29_1 article-title: Virtual reality for robotic laparoscopic surgical training publication-title: Stud Health Technol Inform |
| SSID | ssj0014665 |
| Score | 2.489656 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
Little is known on how best to train the future generation of robotic surgeons. It has been... To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched... What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE, EMBASE... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed pascalfrancis crossref wiley |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 194 |
| SubjectTerms | Biological and medical sciences CAS Clinical Competence - standards Computer assisted surgery Computer Simulation - economics Computer Simulation - standards Cost-Benefit Analysis education Education, Medical, Graduate - economics Education, Medical, Graduate - methods Feasibility Studies General Surgery - economics General Surgery - education Humans Laparoscopy - economics Laparoscopy - education Medical sciences Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases Robotics Robotics - economics Robotics - education Robots simulation Studies surgery Teaching - economics Teaching - methods Telemedicine Training urology User-Computer Interface Validation Studies as Topic |
| Title | Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators – a systematic review |
| URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fj.1464-410X.2012.11270.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22672340 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1282262392 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1282836700 |
| Volume | 111 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000315030200007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVWIB databaseName: Wiley Online Library Full Collection 2020 customDbUrl: eissn: 1464-410X dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0014665 issn: 1464-4096 databaseCode: DRFUL dateStart: 19990101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com providerName: Wiley-Blackwell |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwEB7BFiEkxKMUWGhXRuIa5DheOznSxwpVpULAor1ZfsTSSu2m2nQRR_4D_5Bfgid2UwX1UCEOUSw5Yzn2jP0lnpkP4G3YdKSzU5HxAGYzbpjIjNA-c77QxhZOl12E97cTeXpaLhbVp-T_hLEwMT9E_8MNLaNbr9HAtWn_NnKe8Zwu0EOLYTCMpO8CntwK92I6gq3Dz7P5SX-mwEVHLBmlAnIf-vXc2NZgs3p4odswbj4SXtyESIcAt9uhZo__57s9gUcJp5L3UbGewp16tY0Uz8kdZBvuf0yn8s_gS0ryRDA6adOSxpOgv8vI1kQCKibrxjShIdLGIGzSLs-RNqxZt-T3z19Ek-uE0iQG0-zAfHb09eBDlsgaMstlSbPaV1o6Ni29FoJKXUgtLDIj5VQHECIoIjFhrJt6prVEimAXCt54nTNf1MVzGK2aVf0SiPTa5056Gi7OjDOuthULq6GvLDVejkFezYqyKZM5EmqcqcEXDVc4fgrHT3Xjp36MIe8lL2I2j1vITAYT3wsyzPGc89Cd3StNUGkBaFWO7rkBWlZsDG_66mC6eB6jV3Wzic-UmECPjuFF1KDrxpmQrOChRnaKcuvuqv3jeVd89c-Sr-EB60g_0GlnF0aX6029B_fs98tlu57AXbkoJ8m4_gAvpCFI |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELZQiwCp4lEKXSjFSFyDHMdrJ0deqwLbFYIu2pvlRyytBJtq00Uc-Q_8Q34JM7GbKqiHCnGIZMkZy7Fn7C_2zHyEPIdNR3k3lpkAMJsJy2VmpQmZD4WxrvCm7CK8v0zVbFYuFtXHRAeEsTAxP0R_4IaW0a3XaOB4IP23lYtM5GyBLloco2EUewGAcluAVoG6b7_5NJlP-0sFITtmySgF0H3o2HNpW4PdaufUtDBwITJeXAZJhwi326Imd_7rx90ltxNSpS-jat0j1-rVLpI8J4eQXXLjON3L3yefU5onivFJm5Y2gYIGLyNfEwVcTNeNbaAh2sYwbNouvyFxWLNu6e-fv6ihFymlaQyn2SPzyduT10dZomvInFAly-pQGeX5uAxGSqZMoYx0yI2UMwMwRDLEYtI6Pw7cGIUkwR4KwQaT81DUxQOytWpW9T6hKpiQexUYPIJbb33tKg7rYagcs0GNiDqfFu1SLnOk1PiqB_80QuP4aRw_3Y2f_jEieS95GvN5XEHmcDDzvSDHLM-5gO4cnKuCTktAq3N00AVwWfERedZXg_HijYxZ1c0mvlNiCj02Ig-jCl00zqXihYAa1WnKlburX72fd8VH_yz5lNw8Ojme6um72YfH5BbvKEDQheeAbJ2tN_UTct19P1u268NkY38AuQEkUA |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1bi9QwFD7IrCyCeFlvo-sawddKmmaS9lFdBy_jsKgj8xZyaWBAp8N0R3z0P_gP_SXmNNkulX1YxIdCoD0hPTkn-dqccz6AZ2HTkc5ORMYDmM24YSIzQvvM-UIbWzhddhneX2ZyPi-Xy-ok0QFhLkysD9H_cEPP6NZrdPB64_zfXs4zntMlhmgxzIaR9HkAlHscOWVGsHf8cbqY9YcKXHTMklEqQPdhYM-FfQ12q-sb3QbF-ch4cREkHSLcboua3vyvL3cLbiSkSl5E07oNV-r1AZI8p4CQA9j_kM7l78CnVOaJYH7SriWNJ8GCV5GviQRcTLaNaUJHpI1p2KRdfUPisGbbkt8_fxFNzktKk5hOcxcW09efX73JEl1DZrksaVb7SkvHJqXXQlCpC6mFRW6knOoAQwRFLCaMdRPPtJZIEuxCwxuvc-aLurgHo3Wzrh8AkV773ElPw8WZccbVtmJhPfSVpcbLMcizaVE21TJHSo2vavBNwxXqT6H-VKc_9WMMeS-5ifU8LiFzNJj5XpBhleech-EcnpmCSktAq3IM0A3gsmJjeNrfDs6LJzJ6XTe7-EyJJfToGO5HEzrvnAnJCh7uyM5SLj1c9fLdoms-_GfJJ7B_cjxVs7fz94_gGusYQDCC5xBGp9td_Riu2u-nq3Z7lFzsDw12I8s |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current+status+of+validation+for+robotic+surgery+simulators+-+a+systematic+review&rft.jtitle=BJU+international&rft.au=Abboudi%2C+Hamid&rft.au=Khan%2C+Mohammed+S&rft.au=Aboumarzouk%2C+Omar&rft.au=Guru%2C+Khurshid+A&rft.date=2013-02-01&rft.issn=1464-410X&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft.volume=111&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=194&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1464-410X.2012.11270.x&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1464-4096&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1464-4096&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1464-4096&client=summon |