Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28758128›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2017

Learning and Treatment of Anaphylaxis by Laypeople: A Simulation Study Using Pupilar Technology.

Felipe Fernandez-Mendez, Nieves Maria Saez-Gallego, Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Cristian Abelairas-Gomez, Alexis Padron-Cabo, Alexandra Perez-Ferreiros, Carlos Garcia-Magan, Jose Moure-Gonzalez, Onofre Contreras-Jordan, Antonio Rodriguez-Nuñez

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Felipe Fernandez-MendezUniversity College of Nursing, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
Nieves Maria Saez-GallegoFaculty of Education, University of Castilla la Mancha, Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5052-5567
Roberto Barcala-FurelosCLINURSID Research Group, Psychiatry, Radiology and Public Health Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Cristian Abelairas-GomezCLINURSID Research Group, Psychiatry, Radiology and Public Health Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1056-7778
Alexis Padron-CaboFaculty of Education and Sport Sciences, REMOSS Network Research, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
Alexandra Perez-FerreirosFaculty of Education and Sport Sciences, REMOSS Network Research, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7482-4374
Carlos Garcia-MaganPediatric Area, Pediatric Allergy Unit, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Jose Moure-GonzalezPediatric Area, Pediatric Allergy Unit, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Onofre Contreras-JordanFaculty of Education, University of Castilla la Mancha, Albacete, Spain.
Antonio Rodriguez-NuñezCLINURSID Research Group, Psychiatry, Radiology and Public Health Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESUniversidade de Vigo · ESUniversity of Castilla-La Mancha · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An anaphylactic shock is a time-critical emergency situation. The decision-making during emergencies is an important responsibility but difficult to study. Eye-tracking technology allows us to identify visual patterns involved in the decision-making. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate two training models for the recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis by laypeople, based on expert assessment and eye-tracking technology. A cross-sectional quasi-experimental simulation study was made to evaluate the identification and treatment of anaphylaxis. 50 subjects were randomly assigned to four groups: three groups watching different training videos with content supervised by sanitary personnel and one control group who received face-to-face training during paediatric practice. To evaluate the learning, a simulation scenario represented by an anaphylaxis' victim was designed. A device capturing eye movement as well as expert valuation was used to evaluate the performance. The subjects that underwent paediatric face-to-face training achieved better and faster recognition of the anaphylaxis. They also used the adrenaline injector with better precision and less mistakes, and they needed a smaller number of visual fixations to recognise the anaphylaxis and to make the decision to inject epinephrine. Analysing the different video formats, mixed results were obtained. Therefore, they should be tested to evaluate their usability before implementation.

Indexed as

LearningAdultAnaphylaxisFemaleHumansMalePatient Education as TopicSimulation Training

Identifiers

PMID28758128
PMCPMC5516735
OpenAlexW2724646883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.