Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35060855›Full record

Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2022

Learning Outcomes of High-fidelity versus Table-Top Simulation in Undergraduate Emergency Medicine Education: Prospective, Randomized, Crossover-Controlled Study.

Joseph Offenbacher, Alexander Petti, Han Xu, Michael Levine, Mallika Manyapu, Debayan Guha, Maxim Quint, Andrew Chertoff, Andrew Restivo, Benjamin W Friedman and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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.

Joseph OffenbacherAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Alexander PettiAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Han XuAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Michael LevineAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Mallika ManyapuAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Debayan GuhaAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Maxim QuintAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Andrew ChertoffAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Andrew RestivoAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Benjamin W FriedmanAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.
Joshua SilverbergAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine at the Jacobi and Montefiore Hospitals, Bronx, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOver the last several decades simulation, in both graduate and undergraduate emergency medicine education, has continued to develop as a leading and highly effective teaching modality. Limited research exists to evaluate the efficacy of low-fidelity (table-top) simulation, as compared to high-fidelity standards, as it relates to medical knowledge learning outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy of a low-fidelity simulation modality in undergraduate emergency medicine education, based on quantitative medical knowledge learning outcomes.

methodsA prospective, randomized, crossover-control study comparing objective medical knowledge learning outcomes between simulation modalities. Analysis was designed to evaluate for the statistical equivalence of learning outcomes between the two cohorts. This was done by comparing a calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) around the mean difference in post-test scores, between experimental and control modalities, to a pre-established equivalence margin.

resultsPrimary outcomes evaluating student performance on post-test examinations demonstrated a total cohort CI (95% CI, -0.22 and 0.68). Additional course-subject subgroup analysis demonstrated non-inferior CIs with: Shortness of Breath (95% CI, -0.35 and 1.27); Chest Pain (95% CI, -0.53 and.94); Abdominal Pain (95% CI, -0.88 and 1.17); Cardiovascular Shock (95% CI, -0.04 and 1.29). Secondary outcome analysis was done to evaluate medical knowledge acquisition by comparing the difference in pre and post-test examination between the cohorts. CI of the full cohort ranged from (95% CI, -0.14 and 0.96).

conclusionThe student's performance on quantitative medical-knowledge assessment was equivalent between the high-fidelity control and low-fidelity experimental simulation groups. Analysis of knowledge acquisition between the two groups also demonstrated statistical equivalence.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateEmergency MedicineClinical CompetenceHumansLearningProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35060855
PMCPMC8782127

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.