ArticleBMC medical education2024
Comparison of NeedleTrainer™ and ultrasound tissue simulator in a simulated environment among novice regional anaesthesia practitioners.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Simulation in Regional Anaesthesia: A Narrative Review of Its History, Evolution and Future Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUtilising ultrasound technology has resulted in higher success and lower complication rates during regional anaesthesia (RA) procedures. Proper training is necessary to accurately identify structures, optimise images, and improve hand-eye coordination. Simulation training using immersive virtual environments and simulation models has enabled this competency training to be conducted safely before performing on patients. We conducted a study to compare the simulator performance and users' feedback on a Blue Phantom Regional Anaesthesia Ultrasound Training Block and NeedleTrainer™.
methodsForty-seven participants were recruited via convenient sampling during a RA workshop for novice practitioners. They were divided into the N or B group and then crossover to experience using both Blue Phantom and NeedleTrainer model. Time-to-reach-target, first-pass success rate, and complication rate were assessed, while the learning and confidence scores were rated using six-item and three-item questionnaires, respectively, via a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsBlue Phantom model has a longer time-to-target as compared to the NeedleTrainer model (16 ± 8 vs 8 ± 3 s, p < 0.001), higher first- pass success rate (100% vs 80.9%), and lower complication rate (0% vs 19.1%). Higher overall learning satisfaction scores (28 ± 4 vs 25 ± 4, p = 0.003) and confidence scores after training (13 ± 2 vs 12 ± 2, p < 0.001) were recorded for the Blue Phantom model.
conclusionsWe postulated that the artificial intelligence structure recognition software enables NeedleTrainer users to attain shorter time-to-target. That being said, Blue Phantom provides better operator learning satisfaction, improved confidence, higher success and lower complication rates among novice RA practitioners, possibly due to greater tactile feedback during the simulated training.
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.