ArticleAEM education and training2024
The evaluation of video-assisted debriefing for improving performance in simulated medical student resuscitations.
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. 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.
- The evaluation of video-assisted debriefing for improving performance in simulated medical student resuscitations.AEM education and training · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Simulation-based training is commonly used in medical education. However, there is a gap in knowledge regarding best practices in debriefing. We aimed to identify novel solutions to this by adapting video-assisted debriefing (VAD) methodologies used in athletic training. We hypothesized that utilizing VAD would lead to improvements in performance during advanced cardiac life support (ACLS)-based simulations compared to traditional verbal debriefing (VD). Methods: The study was conducted at a single medical school. Participants were fourth-year medical students engaging in ACLS simulation-based training as part of their emergency medicine rotation. After completing an ACLS-based simulation, participants received either VD or VAD and then completed a second simulation scenario. Our primary outcome was ACLS performance, graded by blinded reviewers utilizing a previously developed modified checklist. Secondary outcomes included time from cardiac arrest to initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first defibrillation. Measurements were made before and after the interventional debrief, referred to as pre- and postdebrief. A modified Likert-scale survey was used to subjectively assess the student's overall experience. Results: Forty-six groups of 275 students were included in the study. Mean ACLS performance score for VD and VAD postdebrief were 85% and 82%, respectively ( Conclusions: VD and VAD both led to improvements in ACLS performance, time to initiation of CPR, and defibrillation among fourth-year medical students. Though postdebrief results were not statistically significantly different by comparison, overall VD led to greater improvement overall across all outcomes.
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.