Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37858188›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Effect of in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section on maternal and infant outcomes.

Yin Wang, Dehong Liu, Xiumei Wu, Chenmin Zheng, Xianxia Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Current practices in caesarean section training: A cross-sectional study comparing high- and low-middle-income countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yin WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Province Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, China. 393153144@qq.com.
Dehong LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Province Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, China.
Xiumei WuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Province Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, China.
Chenmin ZhengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Province Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, China.
Xianxia ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Province Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, China.
Anhui University · CN

Funding

Hospital-level scientific research project of Anhui Province Maternal and Child Health Hospital yb2021-2-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency caesarean section (ECS) is an effective method for rapid termination of pregnancy and for saving maternal and foetal life in emergencies. Experts recommend that the interval from decision of operation to the decision to delivery interval (DDI) should be shortened as much as possible. Studies have shown that improving communication skills among staff by performing simulation drills shortens DDI, thus reducing the occurrence of adverse obstetric events and protecting maternal and child safety. In situ simulation (ISS) training is a simulation-based training approach for clinical team members conducted in a real-world clinical setting. In August 2020, Anhui Maternal and Child Health Hospital began ISS training on the rapid obstetric response team (RRT) in our hospital area for emergency caesarean section. This study aimed to investigate the effect of implementing in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section on maternal and child outcomes by comparing maternal and child-related data on emergency caesarean section in two hospital areas.

methodsData on cases of emergency caesarean delivery implemented in two hospital districts from August 2020 to August 2022 were collected: 19 in the untrained group and 26 in the training group. The two groups were compared concerning the interval from the decision of operation to the decision to delivery interval (DDI), the interval from the decision of operation to the initiation of skin incision, the interval from skin incision to the decision to delivery interval, and the neonatal situation.

resultsPrimary outcome comparison: The training group had a significantly shorter interval between the DDI compared to the untrained group (8.14 ± 3.13 vs. 11.03 ± 3.52, P = 0.006). Secondary outcomes comparison: The training group had a significantly shorter interval between the decision to cut skin compared to the untrained group (6.45 ± 2.21 vs. 9.95 ± 4.02, P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the interval between cutting skin and infant delivery between the two groups (2.24 ± 0.08 vs. 2.18 ± 0.13, P > 0.05). Additionally, the Apgar score at 1 min after birth was higher in the training group compared to the untrained group (7.29 ± 2.38 vs. 6.04 ± 1.46, P < 0.05).

conclusionsThe DDI for emergency caesarean section procedures can be significantly shortened, and neonatal Apgar scores at 1 min improved by implementing in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section in obstetric rapid response teams. In situ simulation training is an effective tool for training in emergency caesarean section procedures and is worth promoting.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionPregnancy OutcomeFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyDecision delivery intervalEmergency caesarean sectionIn situ simulation trainingMaternal and infant outcomesObstetric rapid response team

Identifiers

PMID37858188
PMCPMC10588008
OpenAlexW4387773593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.