Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32014009›Full record

ArticleItalian journal of pediatrics2020

Effectiveness of a new sensorized videolaryngoscope for retraining on neonatal intubation in simulation environment.

Alice Covelli, Serena Bardelli, Rosa T Scaramuzzo, Emilio Sigali, Massimiliano Ciantelli, Marta Del Pistoia, Alessia Longo, Selene Tognarelli, Arianna Menciassi, Armando Cuttano

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Alice CovelliCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Serena BardelliCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Rosa T ScaramuzzoCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy. rosa.scaramuzzo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1765-1972
Emilio SigaliCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Massimiliano CiantelliCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Marta Del PistoiaCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Alessia LongoThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pontedera, Italy.
Selene TognarelliThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pontedera, Italy.
Arianna MenciassiThe BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pontedera, Italy.
Armando CuttanoCentro di Formazione e Simulazione Neonatale "NINA", U.O. Neonatologia, Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

Regione Toscana Bando FAS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, medical training has significantly increased the use of simulation for teaching and evaluation. The retraining of medical personnel in Italy is entrusted to the program of Continuous Education in Medicine, mainly based on theoretical training. The aim of this study is to assess whether the use of a new sensorized platform for the execution of the neonatal intubation procedure in simulation environment can complement theoretical retraining of experienced health professionals.

methodsNeonatal intubation tests were performed using a commercial manikin and a modified video-laryngoscope by the addition of force and position sensors, which provide the user with feedback when the threshold is exceeded. Two categories carried out the simulation tests: anesthesiologists and pediatricians. The categories were divided into three groups each, and various configurations were tested: the first group of both specialists carried out the tests without feedback (i.e. control groups, gr. A and A1), the second groups received sound and visual feedback from the instrument (gr. B and B1) and the third ones had also the support of a physician expert in the use of the instrument (gr. C and C1). The instrumentation used by pediatricians was provided in a playful form, including a game with increasing difficulty levels.

resultsBoth in the case with feedback only and in the case with humans support, anesthesiologists did not show a specific trend of improvement. Pediatricians, in comparison with anesthesiologists, showed a positive reaction to both the presence of feedback and that of experienced personnel. Comparing the performance of the two control groups, the two categories of experienced doctors perform similar forces. Pediatricians enjoyed the "Level Game", through which they were able to test and confront themselves, trying to improve their own performance.

conclusionsOur instrument is more effective when is playful and competitive, introducing something more than just a sound feedback, and allowing training by increasing levels. It is more effective if the users can adapt their own technique to the instrument by themselves, without any external help.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceLaryngoscopesManikinsEquipment DesignHumansInfant, NewbornIntubation, IntratrachealPediatriciansVideo RecordingNeonatal intubationRetrainingSensorizedSimulationSkill trainer

Identifiers

PMID32014009
PMCPMC6998091

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.