ArticleAnnals of surgical innovation and research2016
Assessment of central venous catheterization in a simulated model using a motion-tracking device: an experimental validation study.
Article in Annals of surgical innovation and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-based training in ultrasound-guided pediatric central venous catheterization for anesthesiology residents: transfer to the clinical setting.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Simulated-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block: determining the learning curve and transference to real patient.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical analysis of expert anesthesiologists and novice residents performing a simulated central venous access procedure.PloS one · 2021Article
- Design and Evaluation of a Low-Cost Bronchoscopy-Guided Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy Simulator.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2019Article
- Can Haptic Simulators Distinguish Expert Performance? A Case Study in Central Venous Catheterization in Surgical Education.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2019Article
- Evaluating Surgical Resident Needle Insertion Skill Gains in Central Venous Catheterization Training.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Article
- Biomechanical profiles of tracheal intubation: a mannequin-based study to make an objective assessment of clinical skills by expert anesthesiologists and novice residents.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- Central venous catheterization training: current perspectives on the role of simulation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheterization (CVC) is a basic requirement for many medical specialties. Simulated training in CVC may allow the acquisition of this competency but few reports have established a valid methodology for learning and acquiring procedural skills for CVC. This study aims to validate the use of a tracking motion device, the imperial college surgical assessment device (ICSAD), by comparing it with validated global rating scales (GRS) to measure CVC performance in a simulated torso.
methodsSenior year medical students, first and last year residents (PGY1, LYR), and expert anesthesiologists performed a jugular CVC assessment in a simulated model (Laerdal IV Torso). A validated GRS for objective assessment of technical skills and motion analysis by ICSAD was used. Statistical analysis was performed through Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for construct validity and Spearman correlation coefficients between the ICSAD and GRS scores for concurrent validity between both.
results32 subjects were recruited (10 medical students, 8 PGY1, 8 LYR and 8 experts). Total path length measured with ICSAD and GRS scores were significantly different between all groups, except for LYR compared to experts (p = 0.664 for GRS and p = 0.72 for ICSAD). Regarding jugular CVC procedural time, LYR and experts were faster than PGY1 and MS (p < 0.05). Spearman correlation coefficient was -0.684 (p < 0.001) between ICSAD and GRS scores.
conclusionsICSAD is a valid tool for assessment of jugular CVC since it differentiates between expert and novice subjects, and correlates with a validated GRS for jugular CVC in a simulated torso.
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.