ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2023
Gamification of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) for simulation training-a feasibility study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraining prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.
methodsSecond-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).
resultsFifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.
conclusionGame-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).
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.