Cognitive Task Analysis Versus Conventional Training for Invasive Medical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Karla Palma Portes, Giovanna Cardoso de Oliveira, Rafael Bazoni Soares Maia et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined randomized controlled trials of cognitive task analysis (CTA) and other structured cognitive training interventions in surgical education. Fifteen trials involving surgical trainees and medical students were identified; nine contributed to quantitative synthesis. CTA-based training improved procedural knowledge among surgical trainees (SMD 2.08, 95% CI 1.46-2.71), while no significant effect was found among medical students. Across cognitive training interventions, procedural knowledge and technical performance also improved overall.
Key findings
- CTA-based training improved procedural knowledge among surgical trainees (SMD 2.08, 95% CI 1.46-2.71); no significant effect was found among medical students.
- Across cognitive training interventions, procedural knowledge improved (SMD 1.79, 95% CI 1.45-2.14).
- Cognitive training interventions improved technical performance (SMD 1.73, 95% CI 0.82-2.64).
- Sensitivity analyses showed a consistent direction of effect across studies.
Why it matters
Procedural education involves both technical execution and the knowledge and decisions that guide it. These findings suggest structured cognitive approaches may support both learning outcomes, with the clearest CTA-specific benefit reported for surgical trainees. The results add evidence for considering cognitive training alongside practical instruction in surgical education.
What to keep in mind
Six of the 15 identified trials were not included in quantitative synthesis because their data were insufficient or noncomparable. The reported CTA-specific benefit was not significant among medical students.