Trial reportSimulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare2018
A Validation Argument for a Simulation-Based Training Course Centered on Assessment, Recognition, and Early Management of Pediatric Sepsis.
Trial report in Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sepsis and Clinical Simulation: What Is New? (and Old).Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Hemoptysis associated with percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy: Development of critical events checklist and procedure outcomes.Journal of radiology nursing · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly recognition of sepsis remains one of the greatest challenges in medicine. Novice clinicians are often responsible for the recognition of sepsis and the initiation of urgent management. The aim of this study was to create a validity argument for the use of a simulation-based training course centered on assessment, recognition, and early management of sepsis in a laboratory-based setting.
methodsFive unique simulation scenarios were developed integrating critical sepsis cues identified through qualitative interviewing. Scenarios were piloted with groups of novice, intermediate, and expert pediatric physicians. The primary outcome was physician recognition of sepsis, measured with an adapted situation awareness global assessment tool. Secondary outcomes were physician compliance with pediatric advanced life support (PALS) guidelines and early sepsis management (ESM) recommendations, measured by two internally derived tools. Analysis compared recognition of sepsis by levels of expertise and measured association of sepsis recognition with the secondary outcomes.
resultsEighteen physicians were recruited, six per study group. Each physician completed three sepsis simulations. Sepsis was recognized in 19 (35%) of 54 simulations. The odds that experts recognized sepsis was 2.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-13.8] times greater than novices. Adjusted for severity, for every point increase in the PALS global performance score, the odds that sepsis was recognized increased by 11.3 (95% CI = 3.1-41.4). Similarly, the odds ratio for the PALS checklist score was 1.5 (95% CI = 0.8-2.6). Adjusted for severity and level of expertise, the odds of recognizing sepsis was associated with an increase in the ESM checklist score of 1.8 (95% CI = 0.9-3.6) and an increase in ESM global performance score of 4.1 (95% CI = 1.7-10.0).
conclusionsAlthough incomplete, evidence from initial testing suggests that the simulations of pediatric sepsis were sufficiently valid to justify their use in training novice pediatric physicians in the assessment, recognition, and management of pediatric sepsis.
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.