ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2019
Picking the Right Tool for the Job: A Reliability Study of 4 Assessment Tools for Central Venous Catheter Insertion.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process-oriented feedback for ultrasound-guided central venous access training: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Learning surgical knot tying and suturing technique - effects of different forms of training in a controlled randomized trial with dental students.GMS journal for medical education · 2023Trial
- Assessment methods in graduate medical education in critical care: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Assessment of Implicit Gender Bias During Evaluation of Procedural Competency Among Emergency Medicine Residents.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetermining procedural competence requires psychometrically sound assessment tools. A variety of instruments are available to determine procedural performance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, but it is not clear which ones should be used in the context of competency-based medical education.
objectiveWe compared several commonly used instruments to determine which should be preferentially used to assess competence in CVC insertion.
methodsJunior residents completing their first intensive care unit rotation between July 31, 2006, and March 9, 2007, were video-recorded performing CVC insertion on task trainer mannequins. Between June 1, 2016, and September 30, 2016, 3 experienced raters judged procedural competence on the historical video recordings of resident performance using 4 separate tools, including an itemized checklist, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a critical error assessment tool, and the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE). Generalizability theory (G-theory) was used to compare the performance characteristics among the tools. A decision study predicted the optimal testing environment using the tools.
resultsAt the time of the original recording, 127 residents rotated through intensive care units at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Seventy-seven of them (61%) met inclusion criteria, and 55 of those residents (71%) agreed to participate. Results from the generalizability study (G-study) demonstrated that scores from O-SCORE and OSATS were the most dependable. Dependability could be maintained for O-SCORE and OSATS with 2 raters.
conclusionsOur results suggest that global rating scales, such as the OSATS or the O-SCORE tools, should be preferentially utilized for assessment of competence in CVC insertion.
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.