Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35516819›Full record

ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021

Simulation versus live tissue training randomised trial for ECMO proficiency: is one better than the other?

Thornton Mu, Tricia Garcia-Choudary, Amanda Staudt, Melissa Tyree, Krystal Valdez-Delgado, Nicole Caldwell, Nicholas Carr, Matthew Borgman, Heather Delaney

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thornton MuPediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5189-9317
Tricia Garcia-ChoudaryClinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Amanda StaudtClinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Melissa TyreePediatrics, Center for Neonatal Care, Advent Health for Children, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Krystal Valdez-DelgadoClinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Nicole CaldwellClinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Nicholas CarrPediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Matthew BorgmanPediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
Heather DelaneyPediatrix Medical Group, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
United States Army Institute of Surgical Research · USBrooke Army Medical Center · USAdventHealth for Children · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a classic low-volume high-risk procedure that requires just in time and/or refresher training through animal or simulation modalities. This manuscript evaluated the performance of ECMO personnel trained with both modalities to determine which is better suited for ECMO skills training. Methods: Participants (physicians, nurses and respiratory/medical technicians) completed a series of ECMO scenarios with synthetic tissue cannulation task trainer as well as a live tissue model. Objective performance quality was based on task completion using a validated ECMO skills assessment tool. Results: Thirty-eight individuals completed this study. Participants completed individual scenario tasks 3 min faster using the simulator (26 min vs 29 min; p=0.03). No differences were seen in percentage of individual tasks completed. In the group scenarios, participants completed a higher percentage of critical tasks using the simulator (97%) versus the animal model (91%; p=0.05), but no differences were seen in task completion times. Additionally, no differences were seen in either lab-based or participants' prelab cognitive scores. Conclusions: Regardless of their self-assessment or experience, participants' objective performances were similar among both animal and simulation labs. Task completion times were quicker with simulation model. The distinction between simulation versus animal model may be less important as both demonstrate benefit in development of and/or maintaining skill competency. In the era of questioning the need for and costs of live tissue training, expanding the role of simulation may achieve similar training goals.

Indexed as

High fidelity simulationinfant, newborninterprofessional educationprocedural skills trainingprocedure based assessments

Identifiers

PMID35516819
PMCPMC8936557
OpenAlexW3083712770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.