ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2023
Sepsis and Clinical Simulation: What Is New? (and Old).
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing Sepsis in Primary Care: Navigating Clinical Uncertainty Across Vulnerable Patient Groups.Cureus · 2026Review
- Pinosylvin: A Multifunctional Stilbenoid with Antimicrobial, Antioxidant, and Anti-Inflammatory Potential.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a critical and potentially fatal condition affecting millions worldwide, necessitating early intervention for improved patient outcomes. In recent years, clinical simulation has emerged as a valuable tool for healthcare professionals to learn sepsis management skills and enhance them.
methodsThis review aims to explore the use of clinical simulation in sepsis education and training, as well as its impact on how healthcare professionals acquire knowledge and skills. We conducted a thorough literature review to identify relevant studies, analyzing them to assess the effectiveness of simulation-based training, types of simulation methods employed, and their influence on patient outcomes.
resultsSimulation-based training has proven effective in enhancing sepsis knowledge, skills, and confidence. Simulation modalities vary from low-fidelity exercises to high-fidelity patient simulations, conducted in diverse settings, including simulation centers, hospitals, and field environments. Importantly, simulation-based training has shown to improve patient outcomes, reducing mortality rates and hospital stays.
conclusionIn summary, clinical simulation is a powerful tool used for improving sepsis education and training, significantly impacting patient outcomes. This article emphasizes the importance of ongoing research in this field to further enhance patient care. The shift toward simulation-based training in healthcare provides a safe, controlled environment for professionals to acquire critical skills, fostering confidence and proficiency when caring for real sepsis patients.
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.