Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40117517›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2025

Impact of a 3-Month Recall Using High-Fidelity Simulation or Screen-Based Simulation on Learning Retention During Neonatal Resuscitation Training for Residents in Anesthesia and Intensive Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Anne-Claire Louvel, Cécile Dopff, Gauthier Loron, Daphne Michelet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2025. 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. Article
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

4 authors.

Anne-Claire Louvel *Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1684-2590
Cécile DopffDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2074-3655
Gauthier LoronDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9536-9510
Daphne Michelet *Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, 45 rue Cognacq-Jay, Reims, 51100, France, 33 617861084.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1755-4646

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Retention capacities are dependent on the learning context. The optimal interval between two learning sessions to maintain a learner's knowledge is often a subject of discussion, along with the methodology being used. Screen-based simulation could represent an easy alternative for retraining in neonatal resuscitation. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefits of a 3-month recall session using high-fidelity simulation or screen-based simulation, assessed 6 months after an initial neonatal resuscitation training session among anesthesia and intensive care residents. Methods: All participating anesthesia and intensive care residents were volunteers, and they underwent training in the same session, which included a theoretical course and high-fidelity simulation. The attendees were then randomized into three groups: one with no 3-month recall, one with a high-fidelity simulation recall, and one with a screen-based simulation recall. To reassess the skills of each participant, a high-fidelity simulation was performed at 6 months. The primary outcomes included expert assessment of technical skills using the Neonatal Resuscitation Performance Evaluation score and nontechnical skills assessed by the Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills score. Secondary outcomes included a knowledge quiz and self-assessment of confidence. We compared the results between groups and analyzed intragroup progressions. Results: Twenty-eight participants were included in the study. No significant differences were observed between groups at the 6-month evaluation. However, we observed a significant improvement in theoretical knowledge and self-confidence among students over time. Regarding nontechnical skills, as evaluated by the Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills score, there was significant improvement between the initial training and the 6-month session in both recall groups (16 vs 12.8, P=.01 in the high-fidelity group; 16 vs 13.9, P=.05 in the simulation group; 14.7 vs 15.1, P=.50 in the control group). For technical skills assessed by the Neonatal Resuscitation Performance Evaluation score, a nonsignificant trend toward improvement was observed in the two recall groups, while a regression was observed in the control group (all Ps>.05). The increase in students' self-confidence was significant across all groups but remained higher in the two 3-month recall groups. Conclusions: Initial neonatal resuscitation training for anesthesia and intensive care residents leads to improved knowledge and self-confidence that persist at 6 months. A 3-month recall session, whether through high-fidelity simulation or screen-based simulation, improves nontechnical skills (eg, situation management and team communication) and technical skills. Screen-based simulation, which saves time and resources, appears to be an effective educational method for recall after initial training. The study outcomes justify the need for further studies with larger sample sizes to confirm the promising role of serious games in educational programs for medical students.

Indexed as

anesthesiaanesthesiologyeducationalemergencyhigh fidelityhigh-fidelity simulationICUinfantintensive careintensive care unitknowledge retentionlearnermedical educationneonatalneonatal resuscitationnewbornspediatricresidentresuscitationscreen-based simulationsimulationstudentteachingurgent

Identifiers

PMID40117517
PMCPMC11952274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.