Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type.Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1).Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers.Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.
ObjectiveRepeated practice, or spacing, can improve various types of skill acquisition. Similarly, virtual reality (VR) simulators have demonstrated their effectiveness in fostering surgical skill acquisition and provide a promising, realistic environment for spaced training. To explore how spacing impacts VR simulator-based acquisition of surgical psychomotor skills, we performed a systematic literature review.MethodsWe systematically searched the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC and CINAHL for studies investigating the influence of spacing on the effectiveness of VR simulator training focused on psychomotor skill acquisition in healthcare professionals. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. We extracted and aggregated qualitative data regarding spacing interval, psychomotor task performance and several other performance metrics.ResultsThe searches yielded 1662 unique publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 53 publications were retained for full text screening and 7 met the inclusion criteria. Spaced training resulted in better performance scores and faster skill acquisition when compared to control groups with a single day (massed) training session. Spacing across consecutive days seemed more effective than shorter or longer spacing intervals. However, the included studies were too heterogeneous in terms of spacing interval, obtained performance metrics and psychomotor skills analysed to allow for a meta-analysis to substantiate our outcomes.ConclusionSpacing in VR simulator-based surgical training improved skill acquisition when compared to massed training. The overall number and quality of available studies were only moderate, limiting the validity and generalizability of our findings.
LINK
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system.METHODS: Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle(3)). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1-5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).RESULTS: In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min.CONCLUSIONS: MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.
