ArticleMedicine2020
Validity evidence of a task trainer for normal and difficult lumbar puncture: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using virtual reality in lumbar puncture training improves students learning experience.BMC medical education · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validation of the anatomically complex configurations of the Lumbar Puncture Simulator II (KYOTO KAGAKU CO., LTD., 15 Kitanekoya-cho Fushimi-ku Kyoto, Japan 612-8388) have not been reported. Previous validation of the normal anatomic configuration has been reported. This study aims to evaluate evidence for construct and content validity of 4 interchangeable lumbar puncture (LP) complex anatomic configurations of this simulator.We performed a cross-sectional study between April 2018 and May 2019. Novice volunteer medical students and expert physicians who had performed over 30 LP procedures performed sequential LP procedures on each of 4 simulated interchangeable anatomic LP puncture blocks (normal, obesity, geriatric, combined geriatric/obesity). Primary outcome measures compared between groups for each LP procedure were return of cerebrospinal fluid within 5 minutes and a calculated performance score. Subjective face validity and content validity 5-point Likert questionnaires were completed by participants.35 novice (n = 19) and expert (n = 16) subjects completed 140 procedures. Significant differences were found between novice and expert groups for both cerebrospinal fluid success rates and performance scores for normal (P = .001/P = .001) geriatric (P = .005/P = .002) and obesity (P = .003/P = < .001) configurations. There were no differences for the geriatric/obesity configuration. Expert median score of simulator realism (face validity) was 4 (range 3-4); median score of utility as a training tool (content validity) was 4 (range 4-5).We provide evidence for construct validity for each of the complex LP configurations, except combined geriatric/obesity. Expert physicians found the simulator sufficiently realistic to effectively teach LP skills.
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.