Search

Background: To examine the artificial intelligence (AI) tools currently being studied in modern medical education, and critically evaluate the level of validation and the quality of evidence presented in each individual study. Methods: This review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023410752) was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. A database search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Articles written in the English language between 2000 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively using the MeSH Terms "AI" and "medical education" A total of 4642 potentially relevant studies were found. Results: After a thorough screening process, 36 studies were included in the final analysis. These studies consisted of 26 quantitative studies and 10 studies investigated the development and validation of AI tools. When examining the results of studies in which Support vector machines (SVMs) were employed, it has demonstrated high accuracy in assessing students' experiences, diagnosing acute abdominal pain, classifying skilled and novice participants, and evaluating surgical training levels. Particularly in the comparison of surgical skill levels, it has achieved an accuracy rate of over 92%. Conclusion: AI tools demonstrated effectiveness in improving practical skills, diagnosing diseases, and evaluating student performance. However, further research with rigorous validation is required to identify the most effective AI tools for medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims : This review aims to provide an update on the role of augmented reality (AR) in surgical training and investigate whether the use of AR improves performance measures compared to traditional approaches in surgical trainees. Methods : PUBMED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, British Library and Science Direct were searched following PRIMSA guidelines. All English language original studies pertaining to AR in surgical training were eligible for inclusion. Qualitative analysis was performed and results were categorised according to simulator models, subsequently being evaluated using Messick's framework for validity and McGaghie's translational outcomes for simulation-based learning. Results : Of the 1132 results retrieved, 45 were included in the study. 29 platforms were identified, with the highest 'level of effectiveness' recorded as 3. In terms of validity parameters, 10 AR models received a strong 'content validity' score of 2.15 models had a 'response processes' score ≥ 1. 'Internal structure' and 'consequences' were largely not discussed. 'Relations to other variables' was the best assessed criterion, with 9 platforms achieving a high score of 2. Overall, the Microsoft HoloLens received the highest level of recommendation for both validity and level of effectiveness. Conclusions : Augmented reality in surgical education is feasible and effective as an adjunct to traditional training. The Microsoft HoloLens has shown the most promising results across all parameters and produced improved performance measures in surgical trainees. In terms of the other simulator models, further research is required with stronger study designs, in order to validate the use of AR in surgical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Educational videos are a potent resource for the learning of surgical skills among different study cohorts. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of different educational video interventions and their features. Methods : A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), Cochrane libraries and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception to 28/02/21. Studies included were not limited by date of publication, studies aiming to assess the impact of video-based interventions in the direct acquisition of surgical skill were included. Eligible studies were analysed based on study type, type of video intervention, method of assessment and period of education. The educational impact of the studies was also assessed as per Messick's framework for testing validity of evaluation methods and McGhagie's model for analysing translational outcomes. Results : 22 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion, of which 14/22 (63.6%) demonstrated a significant improvement in knowledge/skills following the video-based teaching interventions, 3/22 (13.6%) studies demonstrated an improvement in trainee satisfaction scores. A recurrent limitation of the included studies was the lack of validation of selected assessment methods. None of the included studies scored on all 5 parameters of validity as defined by Messicks validity framework. Furthermore, none of the included trials were conducted for long enough to indicate direct changes to patient outcomes resultant from educational methods. Conclusion: Video-based surgical education is effective in learning surgical skills within different levels of surgical training; however, superior study quality and follow-up is required to determine which aspects of video-based interventions are most impactful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]