ArticleScientific reports2025
An evaluation of cadaver- and manikin-based surgical airway simulation training for emergency medicine resident doctors.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- The evolving landscape of airway education in anesthesia for head and neck surgery.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In rare cases in which endotracheal intubation is impossible, surgical airway interventions may be needed. Therefore, we evaluated and compared manikin- and cadaver-based surgical airway simulation training programmes for emergency medicine resident doctors (EMRDs) on the basis of the analyse, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (ADDIE) model. The thirty-one EMRDs who were included in the study first participated in a pretest. The participants were divided into two groups, i.e., a manikin-based surgical airway simulation training group (group M) and a cadaver-based surgical airway simulation training group (group C); the researchers ensured the absence of any differences between the groups in terms of participants' pretest scores and whether they had less or more than two years of experience. Sixteen EMRDs practiced the skill in question on a whole-body cadaver, and 15 EMRDs practiced the skill on a 3D-printed cricothyrotomy model. Their performance was evaluated on the basis of the first two levels of the Kirkpatrick model. The reactions of these EMRDs were evaluated via a surgical airway simulation training programme satisfaction survey that was scored on 5-point Likert-type scale (1st level - reaction), and their levels of learning were evaluated via the cricothyrotomy skill assessment guide at baseline and one month later (2nd level - learning). Five participants in each group dropped out of the study during the skill assessment process. The average score on the satisfaction survey reported by participants in group C was 4.85 ± 0.16, and the average score reported by participants in group M was 4.82 ± 0.20. No statistically significant differences were observed between the average scores of participants in the two groups (p = .623). More than half of the EMRDs in both groups performed the cricothyrotomy procedure successfully in their first set of attempts (group C success rate: 56.3%; group M success rate: 73.3%). However, the EMRDs in group M were significantly more successful than were those in group C (p < .01). One month later, the success rates on the procedure exhibited by the EMRDs in both groups were 100%. The EMRDs were satisfied with both the cadaver- and manikin-based surgical airway simulation training. Most of the EMRDs in both groups performed the cricothyrotomy procedure successfully in their first set of attempts, and their success rates increased when they performed the procedure again one month later.
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.