ArticlePloS one2023
Nontechnical skills training in intensive care units: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of non-technical skills training in intensive care units: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is aimed at describing a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of nontechnical skills training on the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes, and changes in behavior at the workplace, of healthcare professionals working in intensive care units (ICUs), as well as the effect on outcomes at an organizational level. We will search for original studies in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases. Studies with a clinical trial or quasi-experimental design will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and assess the included studies, with any disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer. We will summarize the findings using a narrative approach and, if possible, conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). We will conduct the protocol following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The review will summarize the current evidence on nontechnical skills training in ICUs, examining satisfaction with the training program, improvements in knowledge about nontechnical skills and the adoption of safety behaviors, as well as improvement in outcomes for the organization, such as mortality rates, length of stay and cost indicators. We expect that the systematic review could indicate effective strategies for training ICU professionals in nontechnical skills and also determine whether these strategies really improve the safety culture and professional knowledge and behaviors, as well as patient outcomes and safety.
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.