Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35083463›Full record

ArticleATS scholar2021

Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Erica Lin, Alan X You, Gabriel Wardi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The Growing Need for Web-Based Simulation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Medical Students' Perception of Telesimulation Training: A Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    Article
  11. Medical Student Experiential Learning in Telesimulation.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Erica LinDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7522-782X
Alan X YouDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8453-7523
Gabriel WardiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4845-0217
University of California San Diego · USPulmonary and Critical Care Associates · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19remote simulationtelesimulation

Identifiers

PMID35083463
PMCPMC8787731
OpenAlexW3209633159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.