Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450022›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2017

Variation and adaptation: learning from success in patient safety-oriented simulation training.

Peter Dieckmann, Mary Patterson, Saadi Lahlou, Jessica Mesman, Patrik Nyström, Ralf Krage

Abstract read
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 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. When common cognitive biases impact debriefing conversations.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Simulation-based education: deceiving learners with good intent.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Peter Dieckmann1Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Center for Human Resources, Capital Region of Denmark, Herlev Hospital, 25. Floor, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Mary Patterson2Children's National Medical Center, 111 Michigan Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20010 USA.
Saadi Lahlou3London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE UK.
Jessica Mesman4Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Grote Gracht 90-92, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Patrik Nyström5Patient Safety and Learning Centre, ARCADA University of Applied Sciences, Jan-Magnus Janssons plats 1, Helsinki, Finland.
Ralf Krage6ADAM Simulation Center, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan, 1117 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation is traditionally used to reduce errors and their negative consequences. But according to modern safety theories, this focus overlooks the learning potential of the positive performance, which is much more common than errors. Therefore, a supplementary approach to simulation is needed to unfold its full potential. In our commentary, we describe the

Indexed as

Activity theoryDebriefingsFaculty developmentInstallation theoryMundane practicePatient safetySafety IIScenariosSimulationVideo reflexivity

Identifiers

PMID29450022
PMCPMC5806267

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.