Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review

Chandni Pattni; Michael Scaffidi; Juana Li; Shai Genis; Nikko Gimpaya; Rishad Khan; Rishi Bansal; Nazi Torabi; Catharine M. Walsh; Samir C. Grover

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288474

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 3, 2022
2 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Florian Recker, Editor PONE-D-22-30231Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pattni, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Florian Recker, M.D., MME Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "Other disclosures: Rishad Khan has received research grants from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Pendopharm. Samir C. Grover has received research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Takeda, education grants from Janssen, and has equity in Volo Healthcare." Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments: The language needs some revision as sentences are often very long and therefore difficult to read. A more detailed analysis of the included and excluded criteria muste be mentioned. For more detailed information the amount of participants in the nine included studies should be added to the study characteristics in details. It should be considered to display and discuss the results of the different study types, e.g. studies for enhancing practical skills and studies for improving verbal/communication skills separately. The percentage of over- vs. under-estimation of performance in the different studies and study-types would be interesting. The identified risks of bias could be explained more clearly in the text. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This review assesses the current evidence about the efficacy of video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy on medical education. The manuscript is very well written. Research methodology and selection process can both be clearly understood. Notwithstanding this, this reviewer has to express his doubt about exhaustivity of study selection. The authors state: „We only examined studies of physicians (and not medical students), as we aimed …“. Although the Strudy of Scaffidi et al includes 35-47% of students in each arm. How do the authors support this inclusion? On my opinion the low amount of studies included, assessing very different, heterogeneous medical skills among physicians with different experience levels does not allow to support a general statement about the trained technique as the authors try to support. Since the method evaluation of the different studies does not allow comparison, it seems uncareful to asses a statement about the overall performance of this intervention. The authors describe briefly some effect of experience of the physician in the discussion. Although, this reviewer would suggest putting more effort explaining effect size of each study or the relevance of experience. Because of all this, on my opinin this paper does not meet the standards to be considered for publication. Reviewer #2: The language needs some revision as sentences are often very long and therefore difficult to read. Exclusion criteria of the 988 excluded studies should be mentioned in more detail. Why were so many studies excluded? How many studies were excluded because of the lack of what kind of data? The characteristics of the Interventions (line 236-238) do not add up to 100%. For more detailed information the amount of participants in the nine included studies should be added to the study characteristics in details. The included studies should be characterised in more detail. It would be more informative for the reader to mention the surgical disciplines as well as the number of participants and their expertise not only in the table but also as a sum-up in the text. It might be interesting to display if there is an under-or overestimation of skills and what disciplines tend towards which direction. It should be considered to display and discuss the results of the different study types, e.g. studies for enhancing practical skills and studies for improving verbal/communication skills separately. The percentage of over- vs. under-estimation of performance in the different studies and study-types would be interesting. The identified risks of bias could be explained more clearly in the text. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r001
Revision 1
18 Feb 2023 Author Response February 15, 2023, Dr. Emily Chenette Editor-in-chief, PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chenette and members of the editorial board: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript (PONE-D-22-30231) entitled “Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review.” We thank the reviewers for their insightful and thoughtful comments. We have addressed all of the reviewers’ queries and have outlined our responses and any corresponding changes below: EDITORIAL COMMENTS (1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have addressed all style requirements, including for file naming. (2) Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "Other disclosures: Rishad Khan has received research grants from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Pendopharm. Samir C. Grover has received research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Takeda, education grants from Janssen, and has equity in Volo Healthcare." Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. We have added the required statement to the Cover Letter. (3) Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files We have included the tables in the body of the manuscript and as separate files as requested. (4) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. We have added the appropriate captions. REVIEWER #1 (1)The manuscript is very well written. Research methodology and selection process can both be clearly understood. Notwithstanding this, this reviewer has to express his doubt about exhaustivity of study selection. The authors state: „We only examined studies of physicians (and not medical students), as we aimed …“. Although the Strudy of Scaffidi et al includes 35-47% of students in each arm. How do the authors support this inclusion? We agree that this point requires clarification. Our intention in seeking only to examine studies of physicians was that we wanted to represent a narrower group, as we do not consider medical students to be representative of fully licensed physicians. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the study by Scaffidi et al that has a proportionally significant amount of medical students does call this criterion into question. To clarify this, we have added a qualifier in the Methods that we sought to include studies in which the majority of participants were physicians (pg 7). (2) On my opinion the low amount of studies included, assessing very different, heterogeneous medical skills among physicians with different experience levels does not allow to support a general statement about the trained technique as the authors try to support. Since the method evaluation of the different studies does not allow comparison, it seems uncareful to asses a statement about the overall performance of this intervention. The authors describe briefly some effect of experience of the physician in the discussion. Although, this reviewer would suggest putting more effort explaining effect size of each study or the relevance of experience. We also agree that there are heterogeneous medical skills among physicians with different experience levels. We have commented on this as a limitation in the Discussion (pg. 14). Additionally, it is true that there are different measures of effects (which we have highlighted already as one of the limitations). REVIEWER #2 (1) The language needs some revision as the sentences are often very long and therefore difficult to read. We have addressed this point by reviewing the manuscript and making changes as appropriate. (2) Exclusion criteria of the 988 excluded studies should be mentioned in more detail. Why are so many studies excluded? How many studies were excluded because of the lack of what kind of data? We agree that many studies were excluded. Most of these studies, however, were excluded because they failed to properly evaluate self-assessment accuracy with comparison of self-assessment scores to an external observer. We have acknowledged this point in the Results section (pg. 9). (3) The characteristics of the interventions (line 236-238) do not add up to 100%. We acknowledge that there was an error in the calculation, which is corrected in the Results section (pg. 10). Nevertheless, we still would not expect that the numbers add up to 100% as there is overlap between the interventions. For example, self-video was evaluated in 8 of 9 studies but 3 of the 8 studies also involved benchmark video intervention. The combination of benchmark and self-video interventions was evaluated 3 of 9 studies, while benchmark was evaluated in 4 of 9 studies. Therefore, only 1 study exclusively evaluated the benchmark video intervention. The purpose of this line was to highlight that self-video was the most common video intervention. (4) More detailed information about the nine included studies should be added to the study characteristics in details. It would be more informative for the reader to mention the surgical disciplines as well as the number of participants and their expertise not only in the table but also as a sum-up in the text. We agree that these details would be beneficial and have added them in the Results (pg. 10). (5) It might be interesting to display if there is an under-or overestimation of skills and what disciplines tend towards which direction. The percentage of over- vs. under-estimation of performance in the different studies and study-types would be interesting. We agree that these details would be useful to demonstrate and have incorporated the recommendations into the Results (pg 11). (6) It should be considered to display and discuss the results of the different study types, e.g. studies for enhancing practical skills and studies for improving verbal/communication skills separately. We have provided the requested context in the Results section (pg. 11). (7) The identified risks of bias could be explained more clearly in the text. (MS) We have explained the risk of bias more clearly in the Results section (pg. 12). Thank you once again for your consideration of this manuscript. We look forward to your review and comments. Yours sincerely, Samir C. Grover, MD, MEd, FRCPC Division of Gastroenterology St. Michael’s Hospital Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r002
8 May 2023 Decision Letter - Sorana D. Bolboacă, Editor PONE-D-22-30231R1Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pattni, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ACADEMIC EDITOR: in case of small samples, percentages are not recommended to be reported; use instead the ration (e.g. 3/9) self assessment of what? cooking? physical examination? please be specific. please avoid in scientific writing the following expressions "There is/are". the aim: any kind of physicians? "limited among physicians and surgeons" please define limited. lacking in which way? An update of PRISMA, namely PRISMA-2020, exists and should be followed. "PHYSICIANS" used in the search string would not retrieve manuscripts with "physician" The main reason for exclusion at screening is lack of definition of accuracy; this is the main issue of your study because it is well known that such detailed information could not necessary stay in the abstract of the manuscript. Please list the other reasons for exclusion. The reason of exclusions must stay in the prism flowchart not in supplementary file. "was an assessment tool with prior validity evidence, as used in 4 (44.4%) studies." please provide the references for these studies. The exclusion of studies in which no clear definition of accuracy was present in the abstract is a major limitation. Furthermore, inclusion of studies written in English is another limitation. You include studies with pre and post assessment; it is unclear why this information is reported in Table 1. Please do not duplicate the results in text and tables. In Table 2 it is not clear how the scores were attributed. A solution is to present briefly the instrument in the Material and Methods section. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sorana D. Bolboacă, Ph.D., M.Sc., M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The language still needs some revision as some words are used incorrectly and sentences do not make sense. For example: 347 Quantifying this relationship would advance the objective impact of accurate self-assessment on clinical practice. 63 Self-assessment can be used to identify physicians’ deficiencies to allow for appropriate corrective measures. 102 Not only can inaccurate self-assessment impair opportunities for growth, but overconfidence stemming from one’s own performances can lead to patient safety concerns. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. 256 In contrast, of the 2 studies in which self-video review was effective, both were from General Surgery and 1 was procedural. The Conclusions in the Abstract should describe the results of the manuscript in more detail, for example: Benchmark video review may enable physicians to improve self-assessment accuracy, especially for those with limited experience in performing a particular clinical skill. Self-video review may be able to improve the self-assessment of more experienced physicians’. Citing of Literature should be avoided in the Conclusions (omit the sentence in line 342-344 and put it in the right context in the discussion). The first sentence of the Conclusions should be omitted as it does not provide a conclusion. Suggestion: Our review highlights the following suggestions for medical education:... ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r003
Revision 2
29 May 2023 Author Response May 29, 2023 Dr. Emily Chenette Editor-in-chief, PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chenette and members of the editorial board: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript (PONE-D-22-30231) entitled “Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review.” We thank the reviewers for their insightful and thoughtful comments. We have addressed all the reviewers’ queries and have outlined our responses and any corresponding changes below: ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS (1) In case of small samples, percentages are not recommended to be reported; use instead the ration (e.g. 3/9) We agree with this recommendation and have removed the percentages throughout the manuscript. (2) Self assessment of what? cooking? physical examination? please be specific. We have addressed this comment in the manuscript by specifying in the abstract that we are investigating self-assessment of a physician’s own performance on both procedural and non-procedural tasks in a given speciality of medicine or surgery. (3) Please avoid in scientific writing the following expressions "There is/are". We have removed the expression in the revised manuscript. (4) The aim: any kind of physicians? Yes, we were intentionally inclusive for several reasons. First, there is a general paucity of evidence in the first place for interventions aimed at improving self-assessment accuracy. Second, although there is heterogeneity among all physicians based on specialty, practice area and demographics, we conceptualize the practice of self-assessment on procedural tasks as a rather homogeneous activity, owing to its constrained parameters, i.e. assessment of one’s own performance of an external task. (5) "limited among physicians and surgeons" please define limited. We have clarified this with the term “inaccurate” In the Introduction (pg 4). (6) lacking in which way? We have clarified that there had not been a systematic evaluation of the literature until our present manuscript. (7) An update of PRISMA, namely PRISMA-2020, exists and should be followed. An updated and completed PRISMA-2020 checklist had been uploaded with the original manuscript submission. We have provided the updated reference. (8) "PHYSICIANS" used in the search string would not retrieve manuscripts with "physician" Our search strategy was created by a qualified health research librarian employed by the University of Toronto Gerstein Library. She has assured us that there would not be any manuscripts missing with the use of “PHYSICIANS” as opposed to “physician.” (9) The main reason for exclusion at screening is lack of definition of accuracy; this is the main issue of your study because it is well known that such detailed information could not necessary stay in the abstract of the manuscript. We kindly refer the Editor to the Definitions section of the Methods (pg 5), wherein we explicitly define what we mean by self-assessment accuracy, which is “direct comparison between an external evaluator and self-assessment that was quantified using formal statistical analysis”. We have clarified this in the Abstract (pg 2). (10) Please list the other reasons for exclusion. We have clarified the other reasons for exclusions in the Methods (pg 6). (11) The reason of exclusions must stay in the prisma flowchart not in supplementary file. We have not provided the list of reasons for exclusions, but rather put the full text references excluded. (12) "was an assessment tool with prior validity evidence, as used in 4 (44.4%) studies." please provide the references for these studies. We have added the relevant references in the Results (pg 10). (13) The exclusion of studies in which no clear definition of accuracy was present in the abstract is a major limitation. Furthermore, inclusion of studies written in English is another limitation. We have added these two limitations in the Discussion (pp 13-14). (14) You include studies with pre and post assessment; it is unclear why this information is reported in Table 1. We have removed redundant information in Table 1. (15) Please do not duplicate the results in text and tables. Initially, our draft manuscript did not duplicate this; we, however, added in the data in Table form at the request of the reviewers. (16) In Table 2 it is not clear how the scores were attributed. A solution is to present briefly the instrument in the Material and Methods section. We have added in a brief description of the MERSQI tool in the Material and Methods (pg. 8). REVIEWER #2 (1) The language still needs some revision as some words are used incorrectly and sentences do not make sense. For example: 347 Quantifying this relationship would advance the objective impact of accurate self-assessment on clinical practice. 63 Self-assessment can be used to identify physicians’ deficiencies to allow for appropriate corrective measures. 102 Not only can inaccurate self-assessment impair opportunities for growth, but overconfidence stemming from one’s own performances can lead to patient safety concerns. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. 256 In contrast, of the 2 studies in which self-video review was effective, both were from General Surgery and 1 was procedural. We have addressed these points by reviewing the manuscript and making changes as appropriate. (2) The Conclusions in the Abstract should describe the results of the manuscript in more detail, for example: Benchmark video review may enable physicians to improve self-assessment accuracy, especially for those with limited experience in performing a particular clinical skill. Self-video review may be able to improve the self-assessment of more experienced physicians’. We appreciate the suggestion and have incorporated this into our abstract conclusion. (3) Citing of Literature should be avoided in the Conclusions (omit the sentence in line 342-344 and put it in the right context in the discussion). The first sentence of the Conclusions should be omitted as it does not provide a conclusion. Suggestion: Our review highlights the following suggestions for medical education. We have addressed this point by reviewing the manuscript and making changes as appropriate. Thank you once again for your consideration of this manuscript. We look forward to your review and comments. Yours sincerely, Samir C. Grover, MD, MEd, FRCPC Division of Gastroenterology St. Michael’s Hospital Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r004
28 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Sorana D. Bolboacă, Editor Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review PONE-D-22-30231R2 Dear Dr. Pattni, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sorana D. Bolboacă, Ph.D., M.Sc., M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Agree to disagree: "PHYSICIANS" vs. "PHYSICIAN" Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: My comments have been addressed. No further changes are needed. I recommend this paper for publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r005
Formally Accepted
4 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sorana D. Bolboacă, Editor PONE-D-22-30231R2 Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review Dear Dr. Pattni: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Sorana D. Bolboacă Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .