Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450007›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2017

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network.

Adam Cheng, David Kessler, Ralph Mackinnon, Todd P Chang, Vinay M Nadkarni, Elizabeth A Hunt, Jordan Duval-Arnould, Yiqun Lin, Martin Pusic, Marc Auerbach

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A Novel 3D-Printed Mouse Model for Surgical Training: Multicenter Construct, Face, and Content Validation Study.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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.

Adam Cheng1Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Children's Hospital, KidSim-ASPIRE Research Program, Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB Canada T3B 6A8.ORCID 0000-0002-1039-7502
David Kessler2Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Columbia University Medical School, 3959 Broadway, CHN-1-116, New York, NY 10032 USA.
Ralph Mackinnon3Department of Paediatric Anaesthesia and NWTS, First Floor Theatres, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Hathersage Road, Manchester, UK M13 9WL.
Todd P Chang4Children's Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd, Mailstop 113, Los Angeles, CA 90027 USA.
Vinay M Nadkarni5The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Elizabeth A Hunt6Charlotte R. Bloomberg Children's Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans St, Room 6321, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA.
Jordan Duval-Arnould6Charlotte R. Bloomberg Children's Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans St, Room 6321, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA.
Yiqun Lin7Alberta Children's Hospital, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, AB Canada T3B 6A8.
Martin PusicInstitute for Innovations in Medical Education, 550 First Ave, MSB G109, New York, NY 10016 USA.
Marc AuerbachSection of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 100 York Street, Suite 1F, New Haven, CT 06520 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1)

Indexed as

Advanced Life SupportFeasibility TestingKnowledge TranslationPrimary InvestigatorSite Investigator

Identifiers

PMID29450007
PMCPMC5806260

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.