Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 15, 2025

Author Spotlight: Establishing a Practical and Cost-Effective Protocol for Corneal Sensitivity Testing in Clinical Settings
Published on: August 2, 2024
Validity of scoring systems for the assessment of technical and non-technical skills in ophthalmic surgery-a
Thomas Charles Wood1, Sundas Maqsood2, Mayank A Nanavaty2,3
1Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK. tomwoodresearch@gmail.com.
Abstract:
Evaluation and recommendation of the scoring systems for technical skills (TS) and non-technical skills (NTS) assessments in ophthalmic surgery. A literature search was performed between December 2019 and May 2020. Studies describing the development or validation of TS or NTS scoring systems in ophthalmic surgery were included. Only scoring systems for completion by hand were included. The primary outcome was the validity and reliability status for each scoring system. The secondary outcome was recommendation based on modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Nineteen and five scoring systems were identified for TS and NTS respectively. TS scoring systems exist for cataract surgery (including the steps of phacoemulsification and paediatric cataract surgery) ptosis, strabismus, lateral tarsal strip, vitrectomy, and intraocular surgery in general. NTS scoring systems apply to cataract surgery or ophthalmic surgery in general. No single scoring system satisfied all validity and reliability measures. The recommended TS scoring systems are 'International Council of Ophthalmology's Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubrics' (ICO-OSCAR) for phacoemulsification, strabismus and paediatric cataract surgery, and 'Objective Structured Assessment of Cataract Surgical Skill' (OSACSS). Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS), Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) and Anaesthetists Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) are recommended for NTS. There is a paucity of NTS scoring systems. Further research is required to validate all scoring systems to consistent standards. Limitations of the assessment tools included infrequent quantification of face and content validity, and inconsistency in terminology and statistical methods between studies.
More Related Videos
06:29Comparing Objective Conjunctival Hyperemia Grading and the Ocular Surface Disease Index Score in Dry Eye Syndrome During COVID-19
Published on: May 25, 2022
09:29A Standardized Obstacle Course for Assessment of Visual Function in Ultra Low Vision and Artificial Vision
Published on: February 11, 2014