ArticlePeerJ2022
A manikin or human simulator-development of a tool for measuring students' perception.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Comprehensive Validation of the TrAI4Nel Simulator for Nelore Artificial Insemination Training: A Controlled Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Education with the use of medical simulation may involve the use of two modalities: manikins or standardized patients (SPs) to meet specific learning objectives. We have collected students' opinions about the two modalities which can be helpful in planning and evaluating the curriculum process. Although reviews or comparisons of student opinions appear in the literature, it is difficult to find a scale that would be based on a comparison of specific effects that can be obtained in the educational process. In order to fill this gap, an attempt was made to construct a questionnaire. Methods: An experimental version of a questionnaire measuring the final-year students' (273) opinions about the effectiveness of both simulation techniques has been designed on the basis of semi-structured interviews. They were conducted with 14 final-year students excluded from the subsequently analyzed cohort. The scale has been completed, tested and validated. Results: The authors developed a 33-statement questionnaire which contain two scales: teaching medicine with the manikins and with the SPs. Two factors were identified for each scale: Doctor-patient relationship and practical aspects. The scales can be used complementary or separately, as the article reports independent statistics for each scale. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the manikin scale is 0.721 and for the SP scale is 0.758. Conclusions: The questionnaire may be applied to medical students to identify their opinions about using manikins and SPs in teaching. It may have an important impact for planning curriculum and implementing particular modalities in accordance with the intended learning objectives.
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.