Trial reportBMJ open2022
Refreshing medical students' intravenous-cannulation skills: a blinded observer three-arm randomised comparison of mental imagery, part-task trainer simulation and written instructions.
Trial report in BMJ open, 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.
- Cognitive Simulation Using Mental Rehearsal for Procedural Learning in Medical Students: A Narrative Review.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntravenous cannulation is a core competence in medicine, but is considered challenging to learn. This study investigates the effectiveness of three educational strategies used to refresh the intravenous cannulation skills of first-year medical students: mental imagery, part-task trainer simulation and written instructions. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-centre randomised controlled trial, first-year medical students were assigned to one of three different refresher tutorials on intravenous cannulation. Six months after their compulsory 4 hour instructor-led intravenous-cannulation course, each student was randomised to a 6 min self-learning tutorial: a mental imagery audioguide session, hands-on intravenous cannulation on a part-task trainer or reading written instructions.Immediately after the refresher tutorials, trained evaluators who were blinded to the randomised group assessed the students' performance. Each evaluator completed a 15-item standardised checklist in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station for intravenous cannulation. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data and a one-way analysis of variance. Additionally, we investigated the influence of previous intravenous cannulation experience on the total OSCE score. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: On analysing the 309 students' results, we did not find differences in the total rating of the performance (in percentage) between the three groups at the OSCE station (mental imagery group: 72.0%±17.9%; part-task trainer group: 74.4%±15.6%; written instructions group: 69.9%±16.6%, p=0.158). Multiple linear regression showed a small but statistically significant effect of students' previous intravenous cannulation experience on OSCE performance. With the same outcome, written instructions and mental imagery had a better return on effort, compared with resource-intensive hands-on training with part-task trainers.
conclusionA single, short refresher seems to have a limited effect on intravenous-cannulation skills in first-year medical students. Less resource-intensive interventions, such as written instructions or mental imagery, are effective compared with hands-on part-task trainer simulation for refreshing this simple but important skill. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AEARCTR-0008043.
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.