Trial reportBMC research notes2015
Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation.
Trial report in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Competency-Based Simulation Training for Procedural Skills: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026Pooled it
- Simulation-Based Education of Health Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Global health, science and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Educational efficacy of high-fidelity simulation in neonatal resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy of pedagogical framework in neonatal resuscitation skill learning in a resource-limited setting: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2021Trial
- High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students.BMC medical education · 2019Trial
- High and low-fidelity simulation for respiratory diseases pediatric training: a prospective and randomized study.Jornal de pediatriaTrial
- Enhancing pharmacology learning through simulation-based training versus traditional teaching: a quasi-experimental study among undergraduate medical students.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of using simulation in undergraduate medical students' training in neonatal resuscitation.Sudanese journal of paediatrics · 2026Article
- Review
- Training and assessment of skills in neuraxial space access: a scoping review of educational approaches to lumbar puncture, epidural anaesthesia, and spinal anaesthesia.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Manikin physical realism for resuscitation education: A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
- NeoNatalie Versus NeoNatalie Live Simulation for Training Undergraduate Students in Neonatal Resuscitation-A Randomized Control Trial.International journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Low-cost otolaryngology simulation models for early-stage trainees: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Low-Cost Otolaryngology Simulation Models for Early-Stage Trainees: A Scoping Review.Research square · 2023Article
- Insights from a cross-sectional survey of neonatal resuscitation instructors from India.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Simulation-Based Education in Trauma Management: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Frameworks for the design, implementation, and evaluation of simulation-based nursing education: A scoping review.Nursing & health sciences · 2022Article
- A Simulation-Based Clinical Nursing Education Framework for a Low-Resource Setting: A Multimethod Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Simulation-based procedure training (SBPT) in rarely performed procedures: a blueprint for theory-informed design considerations.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge acquisition and skill maintenance are important in learning neonatal resuscitation. Traditionally this is taught by using low fidelity mannequins. Technological advancement enabled a move towards high fidelity mannequins. In a low resources setting, it is incumbent to ensure reasonable cost benefit ratio before investing in technology.
methodsA randomized control trial was conducted in 101 undergraduate students who were assigned to conventional Resusci(®) Baby Basic or SimNewB group over a period of 3 days. The lectures were the same for both groups but the hands on training was on different mannequins. There were five experienced and accredited teachers who were standardized for training the students. Both the groups received a written test and a Megacode before and after the training, and 3 months later a post-test.
resultsThe baseline written exam score (p = 0.07), Megacode assessment score (p = 0.19) and sex distribution (p = 0.17) were similar in both groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in the written exam score as well as in the Megacode assessment score at post-test and 3 months (retention) period. However there was no significant difference in the "improvement" between both the groups with respect to written exam (p = 0.38) or Megacode assessment (p = 0.92). Further the post-test and 3 month scores were comparable for the skills as well as content components suggesting that the skills were retained in 3 months with an opportunity of self learning them.
conclusionsDue diligence is a caveat before contemplating the acquisition of high fidelity mannequins by educational centers for neonatal resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.