ArticleATS scholar2021
Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in ATS scholar, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Impact of Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training on Personal Protective Equipment Use in Health Science Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Examining the Relationship Between Pediatric Clerkship Timing and Performance: COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- The Growing Need for Web-Based Simulation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2024Review
- Article
- Interprofessional simulation with nursing and occupational therapy students: Comparing a virtual and in-person event.Journal of interprofessional education & practice · 2023Article
- Technology Acceptance and Authenticity in Interactive Simulation: Experimental Study.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- Article
- Enhancing Professionalism Online (Netiquette) in Medical Schools: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
- Medical Students' Perception of Telesimulation Training: A Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Medical Student Experiential Learning in Telesimulation.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted medical education for trainees of all levels. Although telesimulation was initially used to train in resource-limited environments, it may be a reasonable alternative for replicating authentic patient experiences for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether a more passive approach through telesimulation training is as effective as traditional in-person simulation training.
objectiveOur aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of in-person versus remote simulation training on learners' comfort with managing critical care scenarios.
methodsThis was a prospective observational cohort study assessing the impact of an in-person versus remote simulation course on volunteer fourth-year medical students from February to April 2021 at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Precourse and postcourse surveys were performed anonymously using an online secure resource.
resultsIn the in-person learners, there was statistically significant improvement in learner comfort across all technical, behavioral, and cognitive domains. In remote learners, there was a trend toward improvement in self-reported comfort across technical and cognitive domains in the telesimulation course. However, the only statistically significant improvement in postcourse surveys of telesimulation learners, compared with baseline, was in running codes. Regardless of the training modality, the students had a positive experience with the critical care simulation course, ranking it, on average, 9.6 out of 10 (9.9 in in-person simulation vs. 9.3 in telesimulation;
conclusionWe demonstrated that implementation of a telesimulation-based simulation course focusing on critical care cases is feasible and well received by trainees. Although a telesimulation-based simulation course may not be as effective for remote learners as active in-person participants, our study provided evidence that there was still a trend toward improving provider readiness across technical and cognitive domains when approaching critical care cases.
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.