ArticleACR open rheumatology2022
Randomized Controlled Study of a Training Program for Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis on Procedural Simulators with Assessment on Cadavers.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Workshop, Assessment, and Validity Evidence for Tools Measuring Performance of Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2023Article
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
objectiveThe study objective was to assess the efficacy of simulators in improving the competence of students in performing a knee and shoulder arthrocentesis on cadavers and to determine the minimum number of simulator training procedures needed to achieve competence in arthrocentesis.
methodsTwo groups of 15 medical students were each trained to perform a single joint arthrocentesis ("knee group" and "shoulder group") on a simulator to serve as a control for the other. The two groups received the same theoretical training (anatomy, arthrocentesis techniques, ultrasound, and hybrid simulation). Each student punctured the two joints on a cadaver. A student was considered "competent on the cadaver" if they succeeded at two or more arthrocentesis procedures out of the three tests on the joint on which they were trained. The minimum threshold value to be competent was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic curve and the Youden index. An assessment of theoretical knowledge and confidence level in joint arthrocentesis was carried out at the start and end of the study.
resultsTwenty-two out of 29 students (75.8%) achieved competence in arthrocentesis at the joint for which they were trained. Of the students in the knee group, 79% were competent on the cadaver's knee versus 60% of the students in the shoulder group (P = 0.43). Of students in the shoulder group, 74% were competent on the cadaver's shoulder versus 57% of students in the knee group (P = 0.45). Four training punctures on a simulator are necessary to achieve competence on a cadaver. The students' confidence level in arthrocentesis increased significantly during the study, as did the students' theoretical knowledge.
conclusionKnee and shoulder arthrocentesis success rates were not statistically different between the two training groups. A minimum number of 4.0 training arthrocentesis on a simulator is needed to achieve competency on a cadaver.
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.