SynthesisBMJ open2024
Development and applications of the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills behavioural marker system: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-technical skills in acute care: an umbrella review of assessment, training, and implications for emergency department practice.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of an app-guided advanced cardiac life support algorithm on teamwork, non-technical skills, and workload in simulated in-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled feasibility trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- AI-driven virtual standardized patients combined with scenario-based simulation in anesthesiology training: a randomized pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of in situ simulation training on quality of postnatal stabilization and resuscitation-a before-and-after, non-controlled quality improvement study.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo comprehensively synthesise evidence regarding the validity and reliability of the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) behavioural marker system and its application as a tool for the training and assessment of non-technical skills to improve patient safety.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: We employed a citation search strategy. The Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published from 2002 to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English-language publications that applied the ANTS system in a meaningful way, including its use to guide data collection, analysis and reporting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. We appraised the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. A framework analysis approach was used to summarise and synthesise the included articles.
results54 studies were identified. The ANTS system was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings and units of analysis. The methods used in these studies varied and included quantitative (n=42), mixed (n=8) and qualitative (n=4) approaches. Most studies (n=47) used the ANTS system to guide data collection. The most commonly reported reliability statistic was inter-rater reliability (n=35). Validity evidence was reported in 51 (94%) studies. The qualitative application outcomes of the ANTS system provided a reference for the analysis and generation of new theories across disciplines.
conclusionOur results suggest that the ANTS system has been used in a wide range of studies. It is an effective tool for assessing non-technical skills. Investigating the methods by which the ANTS system can be evaluated and implemented for training within clinical environments is anticipated to significantly enhance ongoing enhancements in staff performance and patient safety. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022297773.
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.