ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula Creation Simulation Training in a Lifelike Flow Model.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation-based learning in nephrology.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the feasibility and training effect of simulation training for ultrasound-guided percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) creation in a lifelike flow model. Methods: Twenty vascular trainees and specialists were shown an instructional video on creating a pAVF in a dedicated flow model and then randomized to a study or control group. The procedure was divided into five clearly defined steps. Two observers rated the performance on each step, and the time to perform the exercise was recorded. The study group participants underwent supervised hands-on training on the model before performing a second rated pAVF creation. All participants subsequently completed a feedback questionnaire. Results: After supervised simulation training, the study groups participants increased their mean performance rating from 2.2 ± 0.9 to 3.2 ± 0.7. A mean of 3.8 ± 0.8 procedure steps was accomplished independently (control group 2.1 ± 1.4; p < 0.05). The time taken to perform the procedure was 15.6 ± 3.8 min in the study group (control group 27.2 ± 7.3, p < 0.05). The participants with previous experience in ultrasound-guided vascular procedures (n = 5) achieved higher overall mean scores 3.0 ± 0.8 and accomplished more steps without assistance (2.0 ± 1.0) during the simulation training compared to their inexperienced peers (1.5 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.4, respectively). The feedback questionnaire revealed that the study group participants strongly agreed (n = 7) or agreed (n = 3) that training on the simulation model improved their skills regarding catheter handling. Conclusions: The study group participants increased their overall performance after training on the simulator. More experienced attendees performed better from the beginning, indicating the model to be lifelike and a potential skill assessment tool. Simulation training for pAVF creation using a lifelike model may be an intermediate step between acquiring ultrasound and theoretical pAVF skills and procedure guidance in theatre. However, this type of training is limited by its reliance on the simulator quality, demonstration devices and costs.
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.