Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Overview of surgical training and assessment of surgical skills : a narrative review

Berg, Margareta ; Dahlin, Lars B. LU orcid and Kjellman, Magnus (2025) In Frontiers in surgery 12.
Abstract

Objectives: To assess the existence of international, scientifically validated methods for manual surgical skills training and assessment. The aim was to create a descriptive chronological summary of the existing evidence and conclusions in the included articles. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched twice for reviews published between 1997 and October 2023 and between 1997 and January 2024. The search terms used were “review,” “surgical training,” “surgical skills,” “assessment,” and “evaluation” in combinations. In all, 38 reviews were included (systematic and non-systematic). In addition, 30 non-reviews were selected for the introduction and the historical background. Publications on non-technical skills were excluded. Results:... (More)

Objectives: To assess the existence of international, scientifically validated methods for manual surgical skills training and assessment. The aim was to create a descriptive chronological summary of the existing evidence and conclusions in the included articles. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched twice for reviews published between 1997 and October 2023 and between 1997 and January 2024. The search terms used were “review,” “surgical training,” “surgical skills,” “assessment,” and “evaluation” in combinations. In all, 38 reviews were included (systematic and non-systematic). In addition, 30 non-reviews were selected for the introduction and the historical background. Publications on non-technical skills were excluded. Results: Great efforts have been invested by committees and working groups to define methods for surgical training and assessment. However, the work was found to be scattered, without attempts to be overarching and internationally valuable, and few training methods were strictly scientifically validated. Many reviews were limited to (1) one surgical procedure, (2) to one surgical specialty, (3) to one surgical method such as endoscopic procedures or “robotics,” or (4) to a limited geographical area. Conclusions: Scientifically validated, generally applicable methods for surgical training and assessment could not be found. Further research is needed to find simple, equal, and overarching methods to allow valid and reliable comparisons of manual surgical competencies across borders, in financially strained healthcare where resources for adequate training and evaluation of skills may not be available. Financial aspects can be included in future studies, to correlate costs for training with costs for avoidable surgical complications.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
assessment of surgical skills, evidence-based training and assessment methods, review of reviews, surgical skills, surgical training
in
Frontiers in surgery
volume
12
article number
1605495
publisher
Frontiers Media S. A.
external identifiers
  • pmid:40636914
  • scopus:105010869517
ISSN
2296-875X
DOI
10.3389/fsurg.2025.1605495
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
1bc89f18-0fbe-4f68-8131-d940912d89cf
date added to LUP
2026-01-20 10:58:51
date last changed
2026-01-21 03:00:12
@article{1bc89f18-0fbe-4f68-8131-d940912d89cf,
  abstract     = {{<p>Objectives: To assess the existence of international, scientifically validated methods for manual surgical skills training and assessment. The aim was to create a descriptive chronological summary of the existing evidence and conclusions in the included articles. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched twice for reviews published between 1997 and October 2023 and between 1997 and January 2024. The search terms used were “review,” “surgical training,” “surgical skills,” “assessment,” and “evaluation” in combinations. In all, 38 reviews were included (systematic and non-systematic). In addition, 30 non-reviews were selected for the introduction and the historical background. Publications on non-technical skills were excluded. Results: Great efforts have been invested by committees and working groups to define methods for surgical training and assessment. However, the work was found to be scattered, without attempts to be overarching and internationally valuable, and few training methods were strictly scientifically validated. Many reviews were limited to (1) one surgical procedure, (2) to one surgical specialty, (3) to one surgical method such as endoscopic procedures or “robotics,” or (4) to a limited geographical area. Conclusions: Scientifically validated, generally applicable methods for surgical training and assessment could not be found. Further research is needed to find simple, equal, and overarching methods to allow valid and reliable comparisons of manual surgical competencies across borders, in financially strained healthcare where resources for adequate training and evaluation of skills may not be available. Financial aspects can be included in future studies, to correlate costs for training with costs for avoidable surgical complications.</p>}},
  author       = {{Berg, Margareta and Dahlin, Lars B. and Kjellman, Magnus}},
  issn         = {{2296-875X}},
  keywords     = {{assessment of surgical skills; evidence-based training and assessment methods; review of reviews; surgical skills; surgical training}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Frontiers Media S. A.}},
  series       = {{Frontiers in surgery}},
  title        = {{Overview of surgical training and assessment of surgical skills : a narrative review}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1605495}},
  doi          = {{10.3389/fsurg.2025.1605495}},
  volume       = {{12}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}