ArticlePloS one2021
Biomechanical analysis of expert anesthesiologists and novice residents performing a simulated central venous access procedure.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hand Motion Analysis of Different Segments of a Procedure: Is One Segment Enough?Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Lower-Extremity Co-Contraction and Jerk During Gait.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multimodal Assessment in Clinical Simulations: A Guide for Moving Towards Precision Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Educational research on medical residency programs in Chile: a scoping review and analysis of the impact of the new accreditation policy.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Expert-Novice Level Classification Using Graph Convolutional Network Introducing Confidence-Aware Node-Level Attention Mechanism.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of Arm Manipulation in Tai Chi.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous access (CVA) is a frequent procedure taught in medical residencies. However, since CVA is a high-risk procedure requiring a detailed teaching and learning process to ensure trainee proficiency, it is necessary to determine objective differences between the expert's and the novice's performance to guide novice practitioners during their training process. This study compares experts' and novices' biomechanical variables during a simulated CVA performance.
methodsSeven experts and seven novices were part of this study. The participants' motion data during a CVA simulation procedure was collected using the Vicon Motion System. The procedure was divided into four stages for analysis, and each hand's speed, acceleration, and jerk were obtained. Also, the procedural time was analyzed. Descriptive analysis and multilevel linear models with random intercept and interaction were used to analyze group, hand, and stage differences.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences between experts and novices regarding time, speed, acceleration, and jerk during a simulated CVA performance. These differences vary significantly by the procedure stage for right-hand acceleration and left-hand jerk.
conclusionsExperts take less time to perform the CVA procedure, which is reflected in higher speed, acceleration, and jerk values. This difference varies according to the procedure's stage, depending on the hand and variable studied, demonstrating that these variables could play an essential role in differentiating between experts and novices, and could be used when designing training strategies.
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.