Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28825930›Full record

Trial reportSimulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare2017

Simulation Training for Residents Focused on Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Trial Using Mannequin-Based Versus Computer-Based Simulation.

Savino Spadaro, Dan Stieper Karbing, Alberto Fogagnolo, Riccardo Ragazzi, Francesco Mojoli, Luca Astolfi, Antonio Gioia, Elisabetta Marangoni, Stephen Edward Rees, Carlo Alberto Volta

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Savino SpadaroFrom the Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine (S.S., A.F., R.R., L.A., G.A., M.E., C.A.V.), Section of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; Respiratory and Critical Care Group (RCARE) (D.K., S.E.R.), Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; and Anesthesia and Intensive Care (F.M.), Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Dan Stieper Karbing
Alberto Fogagnolo
Riccardo Ragazzi
Francesco Mojoli
Luca Astolfi
Antonio Gioia
Elisabetta Marangoni
Stephen Edward Rees
Carlo Alberto Volta
University of Ferrara · ITAalborg University · DKUniversity of Pavia · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITPoliclinico San Matteo Fondazione · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdvances in knowledge regarding mechanical ventilation (MV), in particular lung-protective ventilation strategies, have been shown to reduce mortality. However, the translation of these advances in knowledge into better therapeutic performance in real-life clinical settings continues to lag. High-fidelity simulation with a mannequin allows students to interact in lifelike situations; this may be a valuable addition to traditional didactic teaching. The purpose of this study is to compare computer-based and mannequin-based approaches for training residents on MV.

methodsThis prospective randomized single-blind trial involved 50 residents. All participants attended the same didactic lecture on respiratory pathophysiology and were subsequently randomized into two groups: the mannequin group (n = 25) and the computer screen-based simulator group (n = 25). One week later, each underwent a training assessment using five different scenarios of acute respiratory failure of different etiologies. Later, both groups underwent further testing of patient management, using in situ high-fidelity simulation of a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

resultsBaseline knowledge was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.72). Regarding the training assessment, no significant differences were detected between the groups. In the final assessment, the scores of only the mannequin group significantly improved between the training and final session in terms of either global rating score [3.0 (2.5-4.0) vs. 2.0 (2.0-3.0), P = 0.005] or percentage of key score (82% vs. 71%, P = 0.001).

conclusionsMannequin-based simulation has the potential to improve skills in managing MV.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationManikinsAdultAnesthesiologyClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementFemaleHigh Fidelity Simulation TrainingHumansInternship and ResidencyKnowledgeMaleProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialSimulation TrainingSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID28825930
PMCPMC5768222
OpenAlexW2747041907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.