ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2017
Randomised controlled study to assess skill retention at 6 vs 12 months after simulation training in shoulder dystocia.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural empowerment of midwifery students following simulation-based training of management of obstetric emergencies.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- The effectiveness of simulation training in obstetric emergencies: A meta-analysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current evidence suggests annual training in the management of shoulder dystocia is adequate. The aim of this trial is to test our hypothesis that skills start to decline at 6 months after training and further decline at 12 months. Methods: In this randomised, single-blinded study, 13 obstetricians and 51 midwives were randomly assigned to attend a 1-hour mixed lecture and simulation session on shoulder dystocia management. Training was conducted on group 2 at month '0' and on group 1 at month '6'. Their knowledge scores (primary outcome) were assessed before (pre-training), immediately after the training (at-training) and retested at month '12' (post-training). Results: Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance showed a statistically significant interaction between the testing time frame (pre-training, at-training and post-training) on the score (p<0.001), but no significant interaction between the groups on the score (p=0.458).Compared to pre-training, the score increased after the simulation training (at-training) in both group 1 (8.69 vs 14.34, p<0.001) and group 2 (9.53 vs 14.66, p< 0.001), but decreased at 6 months post- training in group 1 (14.34 vs 11.71, p<0.001) and at 12 months post-training in group 2 (14.66 vs 11.96, p< 0.001). However the score was better than before the training. There was no significant difference in the post -training score (11.71vs 11.96, p=0.684) between both groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that simulation training results in short-term and long-term improvement in shoulder dystocia management however knowledge degrades over time. Ongoing training is suggested at a minimum of 12 months' interval for all members of the obstetrics team including midwives and doctors.
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.