ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2023
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of benefits, challenges, and utility of simulation-based education among medical faculty of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedical simulation is a crucial educational tool for training healthcare professionals, renowned for its effectiveness in learning. However, its application as an assessment tool remains uncommon.
aimTo evaluate simulation as a tool for assessing training in the management of COVID-19 patients.
methodsThis descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in June 2021 at the Department of Pediatrics, Sahloul University Hospital in Sousse, Tunisia. All medical and paramedical staff in the department underwent comprehensive training in the management of COVID-19 patients, including video training for donning and doffing protective equipment when in contact with infected patients. A simulation-based assessment of these procedures was carried out among the department staff having received this training.
resultsOur study included a total of 67 participants, comprising 28 medical staff (41.8%) and 39 paramedical staff (58.2%). During the assessment scenario, over 50% of participants successfully completed the main steps for both donning (8 out of 11 steps) and doffing procedures (10 out of 11 steps). However, there were instances of incorrect execution in some critical steps. In the doffing test, only 16.4% of participants performed the fitcheck correctly, with a notable difference between paramedical staff and medical staff (25.6% vs 3.6%, p=0.02). The practice of double gloving was observed in only 38.8% of cases, with higher adherence among physicians compared to paramedical staff (57.1% vs 25.6%, p=0.009). Regarding the doffing procedure, we observed that not all staff performed hydroalcoholic friction adequately. Similarly, only 22.4% of participants followed the recommended sequence of gestures, with a significantly higher compliance rate among doctors compared to paramedical staff (50% vs 2.6%, p<0.001).
conclusionsSimulation is a swiftly expanding assessment tool. In our study, it helped reveal specific skill deficiencies that would have gone unnoticed in written or oral assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38468577PMC11261475W4394765914What 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.