Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Comparison of a practice-based versus theory-based training program for conducting vacuum-assisted deliveries: a randomized-controlled trial.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVacuum-assisted deliveries (VAD) are complex procedures that require training and experience to be performed proficiently. We aimed to evaluate if a more resource intensive practice-based training program for conducting VAD is more efficient compared to a purely theory-based training program, with respect to immediate training effects and persistence of skills 4-8 weeks after the initial training.
methodsIn this randomized-controlled study conducted in maternity staff, participants performed a simulated low-cavity non-rotational vacuum delivery before (baseline test) and immediately after the training (first post-training test) as well as 4-8 weeks thereafter (second post-training test). The study's primary endpoint was to compare training effectiveness between the two study groups using a validated objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) rating scale.
resultsSixty-two participants were randomized to either the theory-based group (n = 31) or the practice-based group (n = 31). Total global and specific OSATS scores, as well as distance of cup application to the flexion point improved significantly from baseline test to the first post-training test in both groups (p
conclusionA practice-based training program for conducting VAD results in comparable immediate improvement of skills compared to a theory-based training program, but the retention of skills 4-8 weeks after training is superior in a practice-based program. Future studies need to evaluate, whether VAD simulation training improves maternal and neonatal outcome after VAD.
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.