Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23610477›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2013

High-fidelity simulation for advanced cardiac life support training.

Lindsay E Davis, Tara D Storjohann, Jacqueline J Spiegel, Kellie M Beiber, Jeffrey F Barletta

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Beyond the Classroom: An Observational Study to Assess Student Pharmacists' Confidence and Perception of a High-Fidelity Manikin Chemotherapy Infusion Reaction Simulation.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lindsay E DavisMidwestern University College of Pharmacy-Glendale, AZ 85308, USA.
Tara D Storjohann
Jacqueline J Spiegel
Kellie M Beiber
Jeffrey F Barletta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. To determine whether a high-fidelity simulation technique compared with lecture would produce greater improvement in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) knowledge, confidence, and overall satisfaction with the training method. DESIGN. This sequential, parallel-group, crossover trial randomized students into 2 groups distinguished by the sequence of teaching technique delivered for ACLS instruction (ie, classroom lecture vs high-fidelity simulation exercise). ASSESSMENT. Test scores on a written examination administered at baseline and after each teaching technique improved significantly from baseline in all groups but were highest when lecture was followed by simulation. Simulation was associated with a greater degree of overall student satisfaction compared with lecture. Participation in a simulation exercise did not improve pharmacy students' knowledge of ACLS more than attending a lecture, but it was associated with improved student confidence in skills and satisfaction with learning and application. CONCLUSIONS. College curricula should incorporate simulation to complement but not replace lecture for ACLS education.

Indexed as

ManikinsStudents, PharmacyAdvanced Cardiac Life SupportClinical CompetenceCross-Over StudiesCurriculumHumansProspective Studiesadvanced cardiac life supportpharmacy educationsimulation

Identifiers

PMID23610477
PMCPMC3631734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.