Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34367747›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Does Simulation Training Improve the Accuracy of Vaginal Assessment of Labour Progress?

Girija Swaminathan, Shashank V Parulekar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

2 authors.

Girija SwaminathanObstetrics and Gynaecology, King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, Mumbai, IND.
Shashank V ParulekarObstetrics and Gynaecology, King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim To measure the utility of the Simulation training model for training purposes over and above conventional methods of training for vaginal assessment during labour. Methods The study group included undergraduate trainees, and the control group included postgraduate trainees and qualified personnel, i.e. senior registrars and consultants. Participants from the study group were trained for vaginal assessment on the simulation training model. Then both the groups were tested on the model for accuracy in estimating each value of cervical dilatation and fetal station. Mean cervical dilatation and station accuracy scores were noted, and comparative analysis was done between the study and control groups. Results A total of 150 participants were included. The overall mean dilatation and station accuracy scores of a model trained study group participants were better than subjectively trained control group participants. Study group participants showed greater accuracy for smaller dilatations, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4cm and middle dilatation, i.e. 5cm and 6cm (p value=<0.05). In contrast, comparing the two groups for higher dilatations from 6 to 10 cm did not show any statistical significance. Study group participants also showed greater accuracy for all the fetal stations except stations 0 and +1. Conclusions The simulation training model can be considered an in vitro training device to improve the trainees' understanding of cervical dilatation and fetal station and can be made a part of a routine obstetric teaching program.

Indexed as

cervical assessmentlabour progress assessmentsimulation trainingskills trainingvaginal examination

Identifiers

PMID34367747
PMCPMC8330498

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.