Trial reportJMIR medical education2025
Comparing the Perceived Realism and Adequacy of Venipuncture Training on an in-House Developed 3D-Printed Arm With a Commercially Available Arm: Randomized, Single-Blind, Cross-Over Study.
Trial report in JMIR 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The venipuncture is one of the most frequently performed procedures in health care. Arm phantoms are available for training, because the procedure itself can be challenging. These phantom arms do not represent a realistic setting and do not offer opportunities to train challenging scenarios. Objective: This randomized, single-blind study aimed to train health care workers on both a commercially available injection arm and an in-house developed 3D-printed arm, to evaluate the perceived realism and adequacy of training on both arms. Methods: Participants were trained on both the commercially available arm (arm A) and the 3D-printed arm (arm B). Participants were randomized and blinded from knowing which arm they started training on. A questionnaire was filled in on, among others, the perceived realism of the arm (0 for not realistic, 100 for realistic) and adequacy of the training (inadequate, moderate, or adequate). Results: A total of 68 participants evaluated the perceived realism of arm A and B, which were scored on average 62.97 (SD 21.47) and 63.79 (SD 17.45), respectively. The difference in perceived realism of the two arms was not statistically significant (based on the paired t test, mean difference=-0.82, P=.78). Training on arm A was reported inadequate by 7% (5/68 participants), moderately adequate by 31% (21/68), and adequate by 62% (42/68). This was not significantly different from arm B (marginal homogeneity test, P=.74), with 4% (3/68), 38% (26/68), and 57% (39/68), respectively, reporting that the training was inadequate, moderately adequate, and adequate. Conclusions: The 3D-printed arm is as realistic and provides an equally adequate training compared to the commercially available arm. The 3D-printed arm offers the additional possibility to design different models representing several levels of difficulty for vascular morphology. This potentially lowers the number of venipuncture failures by preparing health care workers on challenging scenarios.
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.