ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of Two Simulated Procedural Assessment Formats in Attending Emergency Physicians.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attending physicians as simulation learners: summary of current practices and barriers in emergency medicine.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Emergency physicians must be proficient at inserting central venous catheters and performing lumbar punctures to provide life-saving therapies to critically ill patients. An assessment of procedural skill is rarely performed after an emergency physician has completed residency. Current board certification exams for emergency medicine focus only on verbal descriptions of procedures to assess skill. We compared two methods of procedural skill assessment, simulated task trainer and verbal description, to assess the range of skill in central venous catheter insertion and lumbar punctures of emergency attending physicians at a large, urban, academic tertiary care institution. Methodology This is a prospective cohort study of simulated internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and lumbar puncture skill by emergency attending physicians on a task trainer versus verbal description. A total of 17 attending emergency medicine physicians consented to participate in the study during a yearly procedural skills session. For each subject, two expert raters used previously published checklists to assess procedural skill and give a global rating score. Results More checklist items were performed correctly on the task trainer than on verbal assessment for central line (task trainer = 78.4% ± 8.32% and verbal = 68.26% ± 8.9%) and lumbar puncture (task trainer = 85.57% ± 7.6% and verbal = 73.53%4 ± 10.34%) procedures, both with significant differences (p < 0.001). Of the participants, 82% strongly preferred the task trainer format to the verbal description assessment format. Conclusions The higher scores on the simulated format compared to the current verbal format imply that a shift towards simulated procedural assessment techniques may benefit examinees. More work is needed to determine if objective checklist scores for practicing attending emergency physicians correlate with subjective expert assessments of their procedural 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.