Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34107936›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2021

Simulation-based training following a theoretical lecture enhances the performance of medical students in the interpretation and short-term retention of 20 cross-sectional transesophageal echocardiographic views: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Yang Zhao, Zong-Yi Yuan, Han-Ying Zhang, Xue Yang, Duo Qian, Jing-Yan Lin, Tao Zhu, Hai-Bo Song

Abstract readRandomized Controlled 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Yang ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Zong-Yi YuanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Han-Ying ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pidu District People's Hospital, 156# East Street, Pitong Town, Pidu District, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611730, People's Republic of China.
Xue YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Duo QianDepartment of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Jing-Yan LinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Tao ZhuDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 739501155@qq.com.
Hai-Bo SongDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. pdasonghaibo@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth simulation-based training and video-based training serve as educational adjuncts for learning TEE among medical students. In the present study, we hypothesized that simulation-based training would better enhance the performance of medical students in the interpretation of 20 cross-sectional views compared to video-based training.

methodsA total of 120 4th-year undergraduate medical students were enrolled in the present study. The study began with a pre-test of all the participants, followed by a 90-min theoretical lecture and a post-test. Subsequently, the participants were randomly divided into the video-based group (Group V) and simulation-based group (Group S). Next, Group V received 60 min of TEE video learning, while Group S received 60 min of TEE simulator training. After the respective training, both the groups undertook the retention-test 1 and retention-test 2, 1 week and 1 month later, respectively. The performance for each test was evaluated by five views, which were selected randomly and, respectively, from a set of 20 cross-sectional views. The primary outcome was the performance of the retention-test 1. Secondary outcomes included: (1) comparison the performances of the pre-test, post-test, and retention-test 2 between two groups; (2) comparison the performances of pre-test and post-test in the same group; (3) comparison the performances of retention-test 1, and retention-test 2 in the same group.

resultsBetter performances were observed in Group S in both retention-test 1 (Group V: 63.2 [52.6, 77.6] vs. Group S: 89.5 [68.4, 100.0], P < 0.001) and retention-test 2 (Group V: 58.0 [48.0, 72.0] vs. Group S: 74.0 [64.0, 80.0], P < 0.001) compared to Group V. No statistically significant differences were observed in the performances of pre-test (Group V: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5] vs. Group S: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P = 0.825) or post-test (Group V: 46.2 [38.5, 57.7] vs. Group S: 44.2 [38.5, 56.7], P = 0.694) between the two groups. The improvement had been observed in the post-test, compared with pre-test in the same group, respectively (Group V in post-test: 46.2 [38.5, 57.7] vs. Group V in pre-test: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P < 0.001; Group S in post-test: 44.2 [38.5, 56.7] vs. Group S in pre-test: 8.3 [4.2, 12.5], P < 0.001). However, the performance in retention-test 2 was significantly reduced, compared with retention-test 1 in the same group, respectively (Group V in retention-test 2: 58.0 [48.0, 72.0] vs. Group V in retention-test 1: 63.2 [52.6, 77.6] P = 0.005; Group S in retention-test 2: 74.0 [64.0, 80.0] vs. Group S in retention-test 1: 89.5 [68.4, 100.0], P < 0.001).

conclusionsFollowing a 90-min theoretical lecture, simulation-based training better enhanced the performance of medical students in the interpretation and short-term retention of 20 cross-sectional views compared to video-based training.

trial registrationhttp://www.chictr.org.cn ( ChiCTR2000033519 , 3/June/2020).

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesEchocardiographyEducational MeasurementHumansProspective StudiesEchocardiographyRetentionSimulation trainingTransesophageal

Identifiers

PMID34107936
PMCPMC8191119

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.