ArticleBMC medical education2025
Low-cost simulation models for soft-tissue procedures for medical student education in Rwanda.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- On AI's role in training professionals in assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training (SBT) enhances medical education but is often limited in low-resource settings. This study aimed to describe the development, use, and cost implication of three low-cost models of soft tissue lesions for SBT of medical students in Rwanda as part of their general surgery clerkship. We also aimed to evaluate perceptions and knowledge gained from the course.
methodsSurgical educators and healthcare providers from Rwanda and the United States partnered to design and implement SBT for soft tissue procedures. We prioritized three common procedures based on operative log reviews and a Delphi process: abscess drainage with/without ultrasound guidance; excision of a subcutaneous nodule; and wound debridement. Materials for the SBT models were locally sourced. Data was collected as a prospective cohort study assessing the participants pre- and post-course knowledge using the Kirkpatrick level one and two questions. Students’ self-reported confidence and course feedback was also collected.
resultsCost was <$1.20 per model and each took ≤ 5 min of active time to construct. Sixty-two students participated over 3 iterations of the soft tissue SBT. Few students had previously observed nodule excision (8.3%), abscess drainage (10.0%), or wound debridement (27.1%). On a five-point Likert scale, student perception of confidence in performing soft tissue procedures improved by + 1.7 (p < 0.001) for nodule excision, + 1.4 (p < 0.001) for abscess drainage, and + 1.7 (p < 0.001) for wound debridement. Confidence scores were greater than or equal to 3.9 out of 5 for all procedures post-session.
conclusionsSBT for management of soft-tissue lesions using low-cost, locally-sourced models was well-received, and increased students’ perceived confidence in three common procedures. These models may be adaptable to other procedural settings and learning levels.
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.