Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33479919›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2021

Development of Neurological Emergency Simulations for Assessment: Content Evidence and Response Process.

Nicholas A Morris, WanTsu Chang, Ali Tabatabai, Camilo A Gutierrez, Michael S Phipps, David P Lerner, O Jason Bates, Samuel A Tisherman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sim and Learn: Simulation and its Value in Neurology Education.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Nicholas A MorrisDivision of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S. Greene St., G7K18, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. Nicholas.Morris@som.umaryland.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1270-9805
WanTsu ChangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ali TabatabaiDepartment of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Camilo A GutierrezDivision of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S. Greene St., G7K18, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Michael S PhippsDivision of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S. Greene St., G7K18, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
David P LernerDepartment of Neurology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.
O Jason BatesProgram in Trauma, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Samuel A TishermanDepartment of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo document two sources of validity evidence for simulation-based assessment in neurological emergencies.

backgroundA critical aspect of education is development of evaluation techniques that assess learner's performance in settings that reflect actual clinical practice. Simulation-based evaluation affords the opportunity to standardize evaluations but requires validation.

methodsWe identified topics from the Neurocritical Care Society's Emergency Neurological Life Support (ENLS) training, cross-referenced with the American Academy of Neurology's core clerkship curriculum. We used a modified Delphi method to develop simulations for assessment in neurocritical care. We constructed checklists of action items and communication skills, merging ENLS checklists with relevant clinical guidelines. We also utilized global rating scales, rated one (novice) through five (expert) for each case. Participants included neurology sub-interns, neurology residents, neurosurgery interns, non-neurology critical care fellows, neurocritical care fellows, and neurology attending physicians.

resultsTen evaluative simulation cases were developed. To date, 64 participants have taken part in 274 evaluative simulation scenarios. The participants were very satisfied with the cases (Likert scale 1-7, not at all satisfied-very satisfied, median 7, interquartile range (IQR) 7-7), found them to be very realistic (Likert scale 1-7, not at all realistic-very realistic, median 6, IQR 6-7), and appropriately difficult (Likert scale 1-7, much too easy-much too difficult, median 4, IQR 4-5). Interrater reliability was acceptable for both checklist action items (kappa = 0.64) and global rating scales (Pearson correlation r = .70).

conclusionsWe demonstrated two sources of validity in ten simulation cases for assessment in neurological emergencies.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyNeurologyClinical CompetenceCurriculumEmergenciesHumansReproducibility of ResultsAll cerebrovascular disease/strokeAll educationCritical careMethods of educationStatus epilepticus

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.