Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Prospective randomized controlled trial of computer simulation versus high-fidelity mannequin simulation in advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) training for anesthesiology novice clinicians.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05001659 (The Comparison of the Two Simulators for ACLS Straining), which is not on this 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.
The Comparison of the Two Simulators for ACLS Straining:Does the Computer Simulator Have the Same Effectiveness as the Mannequin Simulato
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditionally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS) training programs have relied heavily on paper-based instructional materials and multimedia theoretical presentations. This study conducts the inaugural comparative analysis of the effectiveness of high-fidelity mannequin simulators versus computer simulators in ACLS training for anesthesiology novice clinicians. Additionally, it aims to identify an optimal training cycle for ACLS.
methodsThis prospective randomized controlled study included 62 participants, 30 first-year residents and 32 interns from 2020-2021, who were randomly divided into three groups: the computer simulator group (Group C), the high-fidelity mannequin group (Group M), and the combined computer-mannequin group (Group SM). Baseline (T0) and immediate post-training (T1) assessments were performed, covering technical skills, non-technical skills, and self-confidence and satisfaction. Group performance, CPR initiation time, and defibrillation time were analyzed. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (T2-T5) to identify the optimal ACLS training interval.
resultsGroups C, M, and SM showed significant improvements in technical skills at T1 versus T0 (P < 0.05), with higher megacode scores and reduced times to initiate CPR and defibrillation at T1 (all P < 0.05); no significant differences were observed among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Non-technical skill scores in all groups improved significantly at T1 compared to T0 (P < 0.05), and Groups M and SM had generally higher overall non-technical skill scores than Group C (P < 0.05). For self-confidence and satisfaction, Groups M and SM scored higher than Group C in "this mode can stimulate my interest" (P < 0.05). Temporal trends of technical and non-technical skills varied among groups, but all indicated a consistent decline at T5, indicating reduced memory retention.
conclusionBoth computer simulator training and high-fidelity mannequin-based scenario simulation effectively improve novice clinicians' ACLS technical and non-technical skills, though scenario simulation is more advantageous for enhancing non-technical skills. Thus, computers can complement scenario simulators in ACLS training. ACLS training effectiveness appears to decline over time, with notable reductions in knowledge retention and test scores observed at 12 months, which supports the necessity of annual retraining.
trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT05001659) on June 23, 2021.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.