ArticleCureus2026
Impact of Electronic Medical Record Training on Pediatric Residents' Learning Outcomes: A Simulation-Based Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of electronic medical record (EMR) training on pediatric residents' EMR proficiency and clinical decision-making in a simulated setting. Methods This was a prospective, non-blinded randomized controlled trial. Residents randomized into control and intervention groups participated in baseline simulated sepsis and respiratory distress scenarios. The intervention group received structured debriefing followed by EMR training relevant to the sepsis scenario, while the control group received the same debriefing without EMR training. The respiratory case was not debriefed. All residents participated in follow-up simulations three to six months later. The primary outcome was the change in the EMR proficiency score from baseline to follow-up as measured by an explicit checklist. The secondary outcome was residents' clinical decision-making in a simulated setting as measured by an intervention checklist. Results Twenty-eight residents completed the study. In the sepsis case, there was a significant improvement of 2.9 points (95% CI: 1.6, 4.2) in the intervention group EMR score, and a non-significant improvement in the control group. In the respiratory case, there was also a significant improvement of 3 points (95% CI: 1.7, 4.3) in the intervention group EMR score, and a non-significant improvement in the control group. For simulation performance, there was a non-significant improvement in both the intervention and control groups of 1.44 points (95% CI: -0.1, 2.9) and 0.77 points (95% CI: -0.7, 2.3) for the sepsis case, respectively. In the respiratory case, there was an improvement of 0.77 points (95% CI: 0.09, 1.5) in the intervention group and an improvement of 0.5 points (95% CI: -1.8, 1.2) in the control group. Conclusion Simulation-based EMR training can significantly improve EMR data gathering skills and may enhance clinical decision-making in a simulated environment. These results are limited by this study being a single-center and based on the local EMR, as this may impact generalizability.
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.