ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2025
Simulation intervention related to family presence during resuscitation for physicians and medical students: a scoping review.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2025. 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.
- Medical students' experience of culturally diverse family presence during resuscitation simulation.Korean journal of medical education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFamily presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is an established part of family-centered care. However, how physicians are educated about FPDR is relatively unclear. We aim to review the current status of FPDR simulation for physicians and medical students.
methodsA scoping review of literature published from 1999 to May 5, 2023, and written in English was undertaken. Articles were searched for using combinations of various family-, resuscitation-, and simulation-related words as keywords, respectively.
resultsEight articles were included in the final review. This review of FPDR simulation for physicians and medical students revealed findings in three categories: measuring cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality, investigating participant responses after FPDR simulation, and extracting exemplar good-communication elements. First, in four studies measuring resuscitation quality, physicians participated in adult resuscitation, and resuscitation quality was reduced with a family witness showing an overt reaction. Second, in three studies investigating the response to simulation training, interprofessional teams participating in pediatric resuscitation had negative responses to FPDR simulation. Third, in one study, good-communication elements during FPDR were observed during infant simulation, in which interprofessional teams participated. To the best of our knowledge, FPDR simulation training for medical students has not been reported.
conclusionOur literature review highlights a gap in FPDR simulation involving physicians and/ or medical students. Physicians were more concerned with resuscitation quality than supporting families during resuscitation simulations. Medical students should be considered as participants for FPDR simulation. More high-evidence studies with interprofessional teams that include physicians and/or medical students are needed to evaluate curriculum design and participant-response changes following FPDR simulation.
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.