Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Introduction And Hypothesis: Our aim was to compare residents' skill for anal sphincter injury repair in a silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model after video demonstration, simulation-based training, and a combination of both.
Methods: We randomized obstetrics and gynecology residents to video demonstration by an expert (group 1), simulation-based training (group 2) and a combination training model (group 3) using a validated silicone-latex simulation anal sphincter injury model. We tested the anal sphincter injury repair skills of the residents using the global rating scale (GRS) and the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) scoring system. We assessed the validity of the GRS and OSATS scoring system in Bahasa using this anal sphincter injury model.
Results: Thirty-three residents were randomized into the three groups. Group 3 had the largest different in GRS scores (9.82 95% CI (8.45-11.19)). Group 2 (9.45 95% CI (7.85-11.05)) followed and the lowest different GRS score was in group 1 (7.18 95% CI (5.95-8.41)). There was a significant difference amongst the three group (p = 0.018). The highest OSATS score difference was in group 3 (8.91 95% CI (7.49-10.33)), followed by group 2 (6.82 95% CI (5.55-8.09)), and the lowest score difference was in group 1 (5.45 95% CI (3.39-7.52)). There was a significant difference amongst the three groups (p = 0.007).
Conclusions: Combination training is the most superior training for improving anal sphincter injury repair in a simulation model.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06299-4 | DOI Listing |