Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: A case study
Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: A case study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0266462307070341
复制
发表时间：
2007-03-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Fayers, Peter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cook, Jonathan A.;Ramsay, Craig R.;Fayers, Peter
目的：这项研究的目的是评估一项技术的文献综述是否可以量化学习曲线。方法：检索光纤插管的文献，寻找与学习曲线相关的信息。检索Cochrane图书馆、Medline、Embase和科学引文索引。报告手术时间的研究也包括在内。数据被抽象为学习的三个特征：初始水平、学习速度和渐近水平。结果：只有21项研究提供了关于操作者(S)既往经历的明确信息。手术时间有32种不同的定义。从四项纤维鼻气管插管的研究中，第10次手术的平均开始水平和时间估计分别为133秒(95%可信区间，113-153)和71秒(95%可信区间，62-79)。结论：回顾方法允许对我们的示例学习进行量化，技术差和报告不足限制了正式的统计估计。需要对非药物技术进行标准化报告，并提供足够的学习曲线细节，以便为试验设计和成本效果分析提供信息。
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess whether a literature review of a technology can allow a learning curve to be quantified.Methods: The literature for fiberoptic intubation was searched for studies reporting information relevant to the learning curve. The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and Science Citation index were searched. Studies that reported a procedure time were included. Data were abstracted on the three features of learning: initial level, rate of learning, and asymptote level. Random effects meta-analysis was performed.Results: Only twenty-one studies gave explicit information concerning the previous experience of the operator(s). There were thirty-two different definitions of procedure time. From four studies of fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation, the mean starting level and time for the 10th procedure was estimated to be 133 seconds (95 percent confidence interval, 113-153) and 71 seconds (95 percent confidence interval, 62-79), respectively.Conclusions: The review approach allowed learning to be quantified for our example technology Poor and insufficient reporting constrained formal statistical estimation. Standardized reporting of nondrug techniques with adequate learning curve details is needed to inform trial design and cost-effectiveness analysis.