ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2020
Cost-effectiveness of a video game versus live simulation for disaster training.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screen-based simulation assessment for emergency medicine learners: a rapid review.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Article
- Creation of a Virtual Reality Telesimulation Program in Response to Mandatory COVID-19 Social Distancing During the Pandemic: A Primer for Those considering VR Simulation and Application to a Group of Physicians Naive to Virtual Reality.Journal of medical extended reality · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Disaster triage training for emergency medical service (EMS) providers is unstandardised. We hypothesised that disaster triage training with the paediatric disaster triage (PDT) video game Methods: We synthesised data for a cost-effectiveness analysis from two previous studies. The video game data were from the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial that compared triage accuracy in a live simulation scenario of exposed vs unexposed groups to the video game. The live simulation and feedback data were from a prospective cohort study evaluating live simulation and feedback for improving disaster triage skills. Postintervention scores of triage accuracy were measured for participants via live simulations and compared between both groups. Cost-effectiveness between the live simulation and video game groups was assessed using (1) A net benefit regression model at various willingness-to-pay (WTP) values. (2) A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). Results: The total cost for the live simulation and feedback training programme was $81 313.50 and the cost for the video game was $67 822. Incremental net benefit values at various WTP values revealed positive incremental net benefit values, indicating that the video game is more cost-effective compared with live simulation and feedback. Moreover, the CEAC revealed a high probability (>0.6) at various WTP values that the video game is more cost-effective. Conclusions: A video game-based simulation disaster triage training programme was more cost-effective than a live simulation and feedback-based programme. Video game-based training could be a simple, scalable and sustainable solution to training EMS providers.
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.