@article{Al-Jabir_Aydin_Al-Jabir_Khan_Dasgupta_Ahmed_2020, title={Current status of wet lab and cadaveric simulation in urological training: A systematic review}, volume={14}, url={https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/6520}, DOI={10.5489/cuaj.6520}, abstractNote={<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> We undertook a systematic review of the use of wet lab (animal and cadaveric) simulation models in urological training, with an aim to establishing a level of evidence (LoE) for studies and level of recommendation (LoR) for models, as well as evaluating types of validation.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong> Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies using search terms including a combination of “surgery,” “surgical training,” and “medical education.” These results were combined with “wet lab,” “animal model,” “cadaveric,” and “in-vivo.” Studies were then assigned a LoE and LoR if appropriate as per the education-modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a mean of 23.1 (±19.2) participants per study with a median of 20. Overall, the studies were largely of low quality, with 90.7% of studies being lower than LoE 2a (n=26 for LoE 2b and n=13 for LoE 3). The majority (72.1%, n=31) of studies were in animal models and 27.9% (n=12) were in cadaveric models.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Simulation in urological education is becoming more prevalent in the literature, however, there is a focus on animal rather than cadaveric simulation, possibly due to cost and ethical considerations. Studies are also predominately of a low LoE; higher LoEs, especially randomized controlled studies, are needed.</p>}, number={11}, journal={Canadian Urological Association Journal}, author={Al-Jabir, Ahmed and Aydin, Abdullatif and Al-Jabir, Hussain and Khan, M. Shamim and Dasgupta, Prokar and Ahmed, Kamran}, year={2020}, month={Jun.}, pages={E594–600} }