Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39622677›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2024

Death of the paediatric manikin: a scoping review.

Teleireoluwa Apara, Tom Hogan, Jennifer L H Peterson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Teleireoluwa AparaThe University of Manchester Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.
Tom HoganNICU, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Jennifer L H PetersonThe University of Manchester Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK jennifer.peterson@hotmail.co.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7248-2016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhether the manikin should die in simulation training is a controversial area, with some educators stating that manikin death is essential in providing realistic training, while others state that the psychological burden of manikin death could derail learning and impair psychological safety. This scoping review aims to explore the existing literature regarding death of the manikin in paediatric and neonatal simulation education.

methodsThe literature was searched for publications regarding paediatric and/or neonatal manikin death in simulation training. The same search strategy was used across MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycInfo (OVID) databases. Articles were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

results810 articles were identified. 807 were excluded (duplicates/did not meet criteria). Three articles were suitable for inclusion in the final review. Included studies were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of research in this important area of simulation training. From the limited research available, the following themes were identified: death of the paediatric manikin can increase scenario realism; participation in paediatric manikin death scenarios was not more stressful than participating in standard simulation; and the debrief has a crucial role in mitigating the potentially negative impacts of paediatric manikin death for learners.Death of the paediatric and neonatal manikin can provide a beneficial educational experience for participants but requires considered and experienced facilitation.

Indexed as

ManikinsSimulation TrainingChildDeathHumansPediatricsMortalityNeonatologyResuscitationTechnology

Identifiers

PMID39622677
PMCPMC11624770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.