Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32133154›Full record

ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2020

Using clinical simulation to study how to improve quality and safety in healthcare.

Guillaume Lamé, Mary Dixon-Woods

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06737276 (Dietary Advice Training in Nursing Using Simulation and Interactive Fiction), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT06737276 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Dietary Advice Training in Nursing Using Simulation and Interactive Fiction: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CadizRan2022 to 2022Enrolled60ConditionsSimulation Training, Computer Simulation, Diet, Food, and Nutrition, Nutrition AssessmentArmsInteractive fiction activities, Role-play simulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Guillaume LaméTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 097899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation can offer researchers access to events that can otherwise not be directly observed, and in a safe and controlled environment. How to use simulation for the study of how to improve the quality and safety of healthcare remains underexplored, however. We offer an overview of simulation-based research (SBR) in this context. Building on theory and examples, we show how SBR can be deployed and which study designs it may support. We discuss the challenges of simulation for healthcare improvement research and how they can be tackled. We conclude that using simulation in the study of healthcare improvement is a promising approach that could usefully complement established research methods.

Identifiers

PMID32133154
PMCPMC7056349

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.