Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39552082›Full record

Trial reportJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2024

Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial

Matthew Jian Wen Low, Gene Wai Han Chan, Zisheng Li, Yiwen Koh, Chi Loong Jen, Zi Yao Lee, Lenard Tai Win Cheng

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05201950 (Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Virtual Patient Simulation Versus In-situ Simulation for Improving Performance in Trauma and Sepsis Resuscitation in Junior Clinicians in the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT05201950 nacompletednot on this map

Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Virtual Patient Simulation Versus In-situ Simulation for Improving Performance in Trauma and Sepsis Resuscitation in Junior Clinicians in the Emergency Department

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University Hospital, SingaporeRan2022 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsEducation, MedicalArmsVirtual simulation, Team based in situ simulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors.

Matthew Jian Wen LowEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Gene Wai Han ChanEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Zisheng LiEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Yiwen KohDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore.
Chi Loong JenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Woodlands Health, Singapore.
Zi Yao LeeEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Lenard Tai Win ChengEmergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-tailed t-test respectively.

resultsFor sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).

conclusionFor novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceResuscitationSepsisSimulation TrainingAdultChecklistEducational MeasurementEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalSingaporeWounds and InjuriesHospital emergency servicePatient simulationPersonal satisfactionSepsisSingapore

Identifiers

PMID39552082
PMCPMC11647267

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.