Trial reportJornal de pediatria
High and low-fidelity simulation for respiratory diseases pediatric training: a prospective and randomized study.
Trial report in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective randomized controlled trial of computer simulation versus high-fidelity mannequin simulation in advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) training for anesthesiology novice clinicians.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Phlebotomy in Practice: Evaluating the Impact of Timetabled Clinics on Medical Student Venepuncture Skills.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- High-fidelity simulation versus case-based discussion for training undergraduate medical students in pediatric emergencies: a quasi-experimental study.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare high and low-fidelity simulations for the recognition of respiratory distress and failure in urgency and emergency pediatric scenarios.
methods70 fourth-year medical students were randomly distributed in high and low-fidelity groups and simulated different types of respiratory problems. Theory tests, performance checklists, and satisfaction and self-confidence questionnaires were used in the assessment. Face-to-face simulation and memory retention was applied. The statistics were evaluated by averages and quartiles, Kappa, and generalized estimating equations. The p-value was considered 0.05.
resultsIn the theory test there was an increase in scores in both methodologies (p < 0.001); in memory retention (p = 0.043) and at the end of the process the high-fidelity group had better results. The performance in the practical checklists was better after the second simulation (p > 0,05). The high-fidelity group felt more challenged in both phases (p = 0.042; p = 0.018) and showed greater self-confidence to recognize changes in clinical conditions and in memory retention (p = 0.050). The same group, in relation to the hypothetical real patient to be treated in the future, felt better confident to recognize respiratory distress and failure (p = 0.008; p = 0.004), and better prepared to make a systematic clinical evaluation of the patient in memory retention (p = 0.016).
conclusionThe two levels of simulations enhance diagnostic skills. High fidelity improves knowledge, leads the student to feel more challenged and more self-confident in recognizing the severity of the clinical case, including memory retention, and showed benefits regarding self-confidence in recognizing respiratory distress and failure in pediatric cases.
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.