Table 1.

Summary of analysed oesophagogastroduodenoscopy studies and their design

Ref.	No. of participants	Participants' level of training	Design	Task	Model	Primary outcome	Secondary outcomes
Bloom et al[6]	35	Novice and advanced	NRSIS	Visualisation	5 DT gastroscope training simulator	Time to complete procedure1	Wall visualisation1
				Questionnaire			Questionnaire responses
Clark et al[2]	13	Novice and advanced	NRSIS	Completion of monthly assignments over two years on simulator	GI Mentor I	Objective criteria measured by simulator1
Di Giulio et al[4]	22	Novice	MC RCT	Complete simulator or control training programme	GI Mentor I	Competency scores2	Instructor assessed2
Ferlitsch et al[7]	13	Mixed novice and advanced	RCT	Comparison of novice and expert performance in simulated endoscopy. Comparison of performance of simulation-trained and control group of novices	GI Mentor I	Competency scores from simulator1
Ferlitsch et al[3]	28	Novice	RCT	Training on simulator against traditional training	GI Mentor I	Competency scores from expert after 10 and 60 endoscopic examinations2	Pain experienced by patient
Sedlack[9]	8	Novice	RCT	6 h simulation training before 1 mo of traditional training	GI Mentor II	Mixed competency scores from expert2
Shirai et al[5]	20	Novice	RCT	5 h simulation training before 2 assessed endoscopies	GI Mentor II	Mixed competency scores from expert2
Van Sickle et al[8]	41	Mixed novice and advanced	MC NRSIS	Baseline assessment on simulator and after 8 wk of training	GI Mentor II	Competency scores from expert1

¹Simulator-related outcome;

²Patient-related outcome. MC: Multicentre; RCT: Randomised control trail; NRSIS: Non-randomised single-intervention study; GI: Gastro-intestinal; DT: Dimension technologies.