Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785000›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2021

Effectiveness of a serious game addressing guideline adherence: cohort study with 1.5-year follow-up.

Tobias Raupach, Insa de Temple, Angélina Middeke, Sven Anders, Caroline Morton, Nikolai Schuelper

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-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.

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tobias RaupachDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, Göttingen University Medical Centre, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. Tobias.Raupach@ukbonn.de.
Insa de TempleDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, Göttingen University Medical Centre, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Angélina MiddekeDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, Göttingen University Medical Centre, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Sven AndersDepartment of Legal Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Butenfeld 34, 22529, Hamburg, Germany.
Caroline MortonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Nikolai SchuelperMedius KLINIK Ostfildern-Ruit, Hedelfinger Straße 166, 73760, Ostfildern-Ruit, Germany.
University of Göttingen · DEBOS (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients presenting with acute shortness of breath and chest pain should be managed according to guideline recommendations. Serious games can be used to train clinical reasoning. However, only few studies have used outcomes beyond student satisfaction, and most of the published evidence is based on short-term follow-up. This study investigated the effectiveness of a digital simulation of an emergency ward regarding appropriate clinical decision-making.

methodsIn this prospective trial that ran from summer 2017 to winter 2018/19 at Göttingen Medical University Centre, a total of 178 students enrolled in either the fourth or the fifth year of undergraduate medical education took six 90-min sessions of playing a serious game ('training phase') in which they managed virtual patients presenting with various conditions. Learning outcome was assessed by analysing log-files of in-game activity (including choice of diagnostic methods, differential diagnosis and treatment initiation) with regard to history taking and patient management in three virtual patient cases: Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), pulmonary embolism (PE) and hypertensive crisis. Fourth-year students were followed up for 1.5 years, and their final performance was compared to the performance of students who had never been exposed to the game but had otherwise taken the same five-year undergraduate course.

resultsDuring the training phase, overall performance scores increased from 57.6 ± 1.1% to 65.5 ± 1.2% (p < 0.001; effect size 0.656). Performance remained stable over 1.5 years, and the final assessment revealed a strong impact of ever-exposure to the game on management scores (72.6 ± 1.2% vs. 63.5 ± 2.1%, p < 0.001; effect size 0.811). Pre-exposed students were more than twice as likely to correctly diagnose NSTEMI and PE and showed significantly greater adherence to guideline recommendations (e.g., troponin measurement and D-dimer testing in suspected PE).

conclusionsThe considerable difference observed between previously exposed and unexposed students suggests a long-term effect of using the game although retention of specific virtual patient cases rather than general principles might partially account for this effect. Thus, the game may foster the implementation of guideline recommendations.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateGuideline AdherenceCohort StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansProspective StudiesDigitalEmergencyGuidelineManagementSerious gameSimulation

Identifiers

PMID33785000
PMCPMC8008024
OpenAlexW3150192130

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.