Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258663›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2022

Assessing clinical reasoning in airway related cases among anesthesiology fellow residents using Script Concordance Test (SCT).

Andy Omega, Andi Ade Wijaya Ramlan, Ratna Farida Soenarto, Aldy Heriwardito, Adhrie Sugiarto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Andy OmegaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-9959-8975
Andi Ade Wijaya RamlanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-7216-4763
Ratna Farida SoenartoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-6728-7179
Aldy HeriwarditoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-1337-547X
Adhrie SugiartoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-2542-1373

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical reasoning is a core competency for physicians. In the field of anesthesia, many situations require residents to use their clinical reasoning to make quick and appropriate decisions such as during emergency airway cases. The Script Concordance Test (SCT) is a test developed in recent years and validated that objectively assess clinical reasoning ability. However, studies involving SCT to assess clinical reasoning in airway management is scarce.

aimTo evaluate SCT in assessing clinical reasoning for airway management in anesthesiology residents.

methodA cross-sectional study involving residents and anesthesiology consultants from the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia was conducted to complete SCT. A panel of five anesthesiology consultants with more than 15 years of work experience constructed 20 SCT vignettes based on prevalent airway cases in our center from the past 10 years. Each SCT has three nested questions, with a total of 60 questions, to be answered within 120 min.

resultsThe SCT of 20 case vignettes with three nested questions were tested on 99 residents from the junior, intermediate, and senior residents, compared to answers from the expert group consisting of ten anesthesiology consultants with more than 5 years of experience. There were significant differences in mean SCT scores in the junior, intermediate, senior and expert groups, 59.3 (46.1-72.8), 64.7 (39.9-74.9), 67.5 (50.6-78.3), and 79.6 (78.4-84.8); p < 0,001 consecutively. Cronbach Alpha 0.69 was obtained, indicating good reliability.

conclusionOur SCT was proven to be a valid and reliable test instrument to assess the clinical reasoning in airway management for anesthesiology residents. SCT was able to discriminate between groups of different clinical experiences and should be included to evaluate airway competencies in anesthesiology residents.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyInternship and ResidencyClinical CompetenceClinical ReasoningCross-Sectional StudiesEducational MeasurementHumansReproducibility of Resultsairway managementanesthesiology residentsclinical reasoningevaluation testScript concordance test

Identifiers

PMID36258663
PMCPMC9586607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.