Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34331074›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022

Manikins versus simulated patients in emergency medicine training: a comparative analysis.

Jasmina Sterz, Niklas Gutenberger, Maria-Christina Stefanescu, Uwe Zinßer, Lena Bepler, Svea Linßen, Verena Schäfer, Patrick Carstensen, René Danilo Verboket, Farzin Adili and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jasmina SterzDepartment for Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.
Niklas GutenbergerMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Maria-Christina StefanescuMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Uwe ZinßerMedical Faculty, SP Training Center, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Lena BeplerMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Svea LinßenMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Verena SchäferMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Patrick CarstensenMedical Faculty, Frankfurt Interdisciplinary Simulation Center FIneST, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
René Danilo VerboketDepartment for Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.
Farzin AdiliDivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Vascular Medicine, Klinikum Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Miriam RuesselerDepartment for Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany. Miriam.ruesseler@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7494-0159
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEKlinikum Darmstadt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvery physician must be able to sufficiently master medical emergencies, especially in medical areas where emergencies occur frequently such as in the emergency room or emergency surgery. This contrasts with the observation that medical students and young residents often feel insufficiently prepared to handle medical emergencies. It is therefore necessary to train them in the treatment of emergency patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the influence of the assignment of manikin versus simulated patients during a training for undergraduate medical students on learning outcomes and the perceived realism.

methodsThe study had a prospective cross-over design and took place in a 3-day emergency medicine training for undergraduate medical students. Students completed three teaching units ('chest pain', 'impaired consciousness', 'dyspnea'), either with manikin or simulated patient. Using a questionnaire after each unit, overall impression, didactics, content, the quality of practical exercises, and the learning success were evaluated. The gained competences were measured in a 6-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at the end of training.

results126 students participated. Students rated simulated patients as significantly more realistic than manikins regarding the possibility to carry out examination techniques and taking medical history. 54.92% of the students would prefer to train with simulated patients in the future. Regarding the gained competences for 'chest pain' and 'impaired consciousness', students who trained with a manikin scored less in the OSCE station than the simulated patients-group.

conclusionSimulated patients are rated more realistic than manikins and seem to be superior to manikins regarding gained competence.

Indexed as

Emergency MedicineManikinsClinical CompetenceCross-Over StudiesEmergenciesHumansPainProspective StudiesPatient manikinsSimulated patientsSimulation trainingUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID34331074
PMCPMC9532276
OpenAlexW3185315057

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.