Do Feedback Given by an Automatic and Objective System in Simulated Colonoscopy Increase Learning and Time Spent Practicing? A Randomized Trial
Sponsor study identifier
interventional
44
1 country
1
Study Start
December 2016
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
Primary Completion
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)Study Completion
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)The aim is to investigate if feedback given by an automatic and objective system in simulated colonoscopy (the investigation of the large intestine) increase learning and time spent practicing.
Registry-reported information. Elapsed time and enrollment totals alone do not measure study progress or recruitment pace.
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)Click on a node to explore related trials.
Some registry-reported names shown below are not yet linked in this graph.
Dates and qualifiers reported by the registry. Estimated dates do not confirm that a milestone has occurred.
October 13, 2016
Actual (reported)December 2016
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)August 14, 2017
Actual (reported)Final CoPS
The final CoPS is a mean-score of the CoPS´ in the final cases. Primary outcome is the difference between the interventiongroup and the control group.
There is only one time point (baseline = after the final cases)
Total time spent practicing
up to 120 minutes
Amount of time spend on each case
up to 720 seconds
Each participant will as feedback be given the actual CoPS after reaching the cecum on the standardized Kagaku Training Model. A leaderboard with experts performances will be present for comparison.
No feedback is given and the participants are not aware of the CoPS
The COPS is an automated and objective computer-based program which generate a score/number after the colonoscope has reached the cecum. The participants are able to compare the score with experts.
Registry-reported names are shown in full. Names without a link have not yet been matched to a Syfrah profile.
Copenhagen Acedemy of Medical Education and Simulation
Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark
Kaltenbach T, Leung C, Wu K, Yan K, Friedland S, Soetikno R. Use of the colonoscope training model with the colonoscope 3D imaging probe improved trainee colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 May;56(5):1496-502. doi: 10.1007/s10620-011-1614-1. Epub 2011 Mar 16.
Nerup N, Preisler L, Svendsen MB, Svendsen LB, Konge L. Assessment of colonoscopy by use of magnetic endoscopic imaging: design and validation of an automated tool. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):548-54. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.019. Epub 2014 Sep 23.
Lars Konge, Professor
CAMES-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation
44 participants (actual enrollment reported by the registry).
First Submitted
October 13, 2016
First Posted
August 14, 2017
Study Start
December 2016
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
Repeated Versus Varied Simulation Scenarios to Teach Medical Students the Management of a Pediatric Asthma Exacerbation
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Plooy AM, Hill A, Horswill MS, Cresp AS, Watson MO, Ooi SY, Riek S, Wallis GM, Burgess-Limerick R, Hewett DG. Construct validation of a physical model colonoscopy simulator. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jul;76(1):144-50. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.246.
Brinkman WM, Buzink SN, Alevizos L, de Hingh IH, Jakimowicz JJ. Criterion-based laparoscopic training reduces total training time. Surg Endosc. 2012 Apr;26(4):1095-101. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-2005-6. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
Strandbygaard J, Bjerrum F, Maagaard M, Winkel P, Larsen CR, Ringsted C, Gluud C, Grantcharov T, Ottesen B, Sorensen JL. Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):839-44. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827eee6e.
Wulf G, Raupach M, Pfeiffer F. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2005 Mar;76(1):107-11. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2005.10599266. No abstract available.
Park HJ, Hong JH, Kim HS, Kim BR, Park SY, Jo KW, Kim JW. Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees. BMC Med Educ. 2013 Jan 19;13:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-5.
Vilmann AS, Norsk D, Svendsen MBS, Reinhold R, Svendsen LB, Park YS, Konge L. Computerized feedback during colonoscopy training leads to improved performance: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Nov;88(5):869-876. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.008. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
Primary Completion
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)Study Completion
February 28, 2017
Actual (reported)Last Updated
August 14, 2017
Record last verified: 2017-08
Download the complete ClinicalTrials.gov record imported by Syfrah, including fields not shown in this page. The registry may contain a newer revision.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov.
JSON downloads include source attribution and retrieval details alongside the unchanged original record or the separately normalized values.
Source retrieved: