Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075641›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

Comparative value of a simulation by gaming and a traditional teaching method to improve clinical reasoning skills necessary to detect patient deterioration: a randomized study in nursing students.

Antonia Blanié, Michel-Ange Amorim, Dan Benhamou

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT03428269 nacompletednot on this map

Comparative Value of a Serious Game and a Traditional Teaching Method to Improve Clinical Reasoning Skills Necessary to Detect Patient Deterioration: A Randomized Study in Nursing Students

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversité Paris-SudRan2018 to 2018Enrolled146ConditionsSimulationArmssimulation by gaming (LabForGames Warning), traditional education
NCT05520671 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating TESLA-G, a Gamified, Telegram-delivered, Quizzing Platform for Surgical Education in Medical Students: a Protocol for a Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNanyang Technological UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsSurgical Education in Medical StudentsArmsGamified online quizzing platform, Conventional quizzing platform
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonia BlaniéCentre de simulation LabForSIMS, Faculté de médecine Paris Saclay, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. antonia.blanie@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2291-0315
Michel-Ange AmorimCIAMS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay, Cedex, France.
Dan BenhamouCentre de simulation LabForSIMS, Faculté de médecine Paris Saclay, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Université Paris-Sud · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly detection and response to patient deterioration influence patient prognosis. Nursing education is therefore essential. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the respective educational value of simulation by gaming (SG) and a traditional teaching (TT) method to improve clinical reasoning (CR) skills necessary to detect patient deterioration.

methodsIn a prospective multicenter study, and after consent, 2nd year nursing students were randomized into two groups: Simulation by gaming "SG": the student played individually with a serious game consisting of 2 cases followed by a common debriefing with an instructor;Traditional Teaching "TT": the student worked on the same cases in text paper format followed by a traditional teaching course with a PowerPoint presentation by an instructor. CR skill was measured by script concordance tests (80 SCTs, score 0-100) immediately after the session (primary outcome) and on month later. Other outcomes included students' satisfaction, motivation and professional impact.

resultsOne hundred forty-six students were randomized. Immediately after training, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 9 in SG group (n = 73) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 73) (p = 0.43). One month later, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 10 in SG group (n = 65) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 54) (p = 0.77). Global satisfaction and motivation were highly valued in both groups although significantly greater in the SG group (p < 0.05). The students declared that the training course would have a positive professional impact, with no difference between groups.

conclusionsIn this study assessing nursing student CR to detect patient deterioration, no significant educational difference (SCT), neither immediate nor 1 month later, was observed between training by SG and the TT course. However, satisfaction and motivation were found to be greater with the use of SG.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03428269. Registered 30 january 2018.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDisease ProgressionVideo GamesEducation, NursingFemaleHumansMaleNurse-Patient RelationsProblem SolvingProspective StudiesReference ValuesSimulation TrainingTeachingClinical reasoningDeteriorationMotivationNursing studentsScript concordance testSerious gamesSimulation

Identifiers

PMID32075641
PMCPMC7031947
OpenAlexW3012932769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.