Surgical endoscopy education research: how are we doing?

Tiffany N Anderson; LaDonna E Kearse; Robert Shi; Aboubacar Kaba; Ingrid S Schmiederer; Elizabeth M Huffman; E M Ritter; James R Korndorffer Jr

doi:10.1007/s00464-022-09104-1

Surgical endoscopy education research: how are we doing?

Surg Endosc. 2022 Nov;36(11):8403-8407. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09104-1. Epub 2022 Feb 22.

Authors

Tiffany N Anderson¹, LaDonna E Kearse², Robert Shi², Aboubacar Kaba³, Ingrid S Schmiederer⁴, Elizabeth M Huffman⁵, E M Ritter⁵, James R Korndorffer Jr²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, P.O. Box 100286, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. Tiffany.Anderson@surgery.ufl.edu.
² Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
³ Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
⁴ Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian-Queens Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
⁵ Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

PMID: 35194666
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09104-1

Abstract

Background: Surgical endoscopy (SE), the official journal of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, is an important source of new evidence pertaining to surgical education in the field. However, qualitative deficiencies in medical education research have prompted medical education leaders to advocate for increased methodological rigor. The purpose of this study is to review the quality of education-focused research published through SE.

Methods: A PubMed search examining all SE articles categorized as education-related research from 2010 to 2019 was conducted; studies not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded. Remaining publications were independently reviewed, classified, and scored by 7 raters using the medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). Intraclass correlation was calculated and data were examined with descriptive statistics.

Results: A total of 227 studies met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in number of publications by year (average 25.88 [SD 5.6]); 60% were conducted outside of the United States, and 47% (n = 106) were funded. The average MERSQI was 12.5 (SD 2). Most studies used two-group non-random (42%, n = 96) or post/cross-sectional designs (29%, n = 65). Thirty-six (16%) were randomized controlled trials. Multi-institutional studies comprised 24% (n = 54). Of the manuscripts, 96% (n = 217) reported at least one measure of validity evidence and 28% (n = 67) described three levels of validity evidence. Studies primarily reported changes in skills or knowledge (45%, n = 103) or satisfaction or general facts (44%, n = 99), while patient-related outcomes encompassed 3% (n = 6) of studies. ICC between raters was 0.93 (CI 0.90-0.93, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Based on publications to date, this journal's peer review process appears to facilitate the dissemination of education-related studies of moderate to good quality. However, there were uncovered deficits, ranging from validity evidence to study designs and level of outcomes. This journal's breadth of viewership offers a potential venue to advance education-related research.

Keywords: MERSQI; Medical education research; Surgical education.

MeSH terms

Biomedical Research*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Education, Medical*
Endoscopy
Humans
Research Design