Dataset Information

Simulation based training versus non-simulation based training in anesthesiology: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Simulation based training (SBT) has become an important tool in medical education, yet a comprehensive review of its effect in anesthesiology is currently lacking. This study was aimed to compare the effect of SBT versus non-simulation based training (NSBT) in anesthesia education.

Methods

Data were derived from PubMed, Ovid (EMBASE and MEDLINE), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) from database inception up to June 2022. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of Simulation-Based Training (SBT) on anesthesiology training and compared it to Non-Simulation-Based Training (NSBT).

Results

25 eligible studies were included, with a total sample size of 1621 medical students. SBT was associated with improved theoretical scores [mean difference (MD):5.28, 95%CI 3.06 to 7.49, P < 0.01] and skill scores (MD: 7.63, 95% CI 5.7 to 9.57, P < 0.01) in comparison with NSBT. And SBT significantly improved teaching effects, including success rate, analytic skill in clinical setting, learning interest, learn efficiency and satisfaction survey. Also, a dramatic promotion was observed in the evaluation of non-technical ability consisting of cooperative ability, problem solving ability and situational awareness after trainees with SBT.

Conclusions

Simulation-based training is an effective method for improving theoretical scores, skill scores, teaching effects and non-technical ability. Yet, further good-quality RCTs are required to confirm these changes translate to improved patient outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to carefully consider the cost-benefit effect to conduct simulation-based in anesthesiology education.

SUBMITTER: Su Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10412876 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Simulation based training versus non-simulation based training in anesthesiology: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Su Yi Y Zeng Yi Y

Heliyon 20230713 8

<h4>Background</h4>Simulation based training (SBT) has become an important tool in medical education, yet a comprehensive review of its effect in anesthesiology is currently lacking. This study was aimed to compare the effect of SBT versus non-simulation based training (NSBT) in anesthesia education.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were derived from PubMed, Ovid (EMBASE and MEDLINE), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) from database inception up to June 2022. We i ...[more]

PMID: 37576292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes.MethodsMulticenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively.ResultsWe included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153).ConclusionsThis scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundNon-technical skills (NTS), such as communication and professionalism, contribute to the safe and effective completion of procedures. NTS training has previously been shown to improve surgical performance. Moreover, increases in NTS have been associated with improved clinical endoscopic performance. Despite this evidence, NTS training has not been tested as an intervention in endoscopy.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a simulation-based training (SBT) curriculum of NTS on novice endoscopists' performance of clinical colonoscopy.MethodsNovice endoscopists were randomized to 2 groups. The control group received 4 hours of interactive didactic sessions on colonoscopy theory and 6 hours of SBT. Hours 5 and 6 of the SBT were integrated scenarios, wherein participants interacted with a standardized patient and nurse, while performing a colonoscopy on the virtual reality (VR) simulator. The NTS (intervention) group received the same teaching sessions but the last hour was focused on NTS teaching. The NTS group also reviewed a checklist of tasks relevant to NTS concepts prior to each integrated scenario case and was provided with dedicated feedback on their NTS performance during the integrated scenario practice. All participants were assessed at baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks post-training. The primary outcome measure is colonoscopy-specific performance in the clinical setting.ResultsIn total, 42 novice endoscopists completed the study. Data collection and analysis is ongoing. We anticipate completion of all assessments by August 2017. Data analysis, manuscript writing, and subsequent submission for publication is expected to be completed by December 2017.ConclusionsResults from this study may inform the implementation of NTS training into postgraduate gastrointestinal curricula. NTS curricula may improve attitudes towards patient safety and self-reflection among trainees. Moreover, enhanced NTS may lead to superior clinical performance and outcomes in colonoscopy.Trial registrationClinicaltrial.gov NCT02877420; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02877420 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rw94ubXX NCT02877420).

Project description:BackgroundRecently, using the patient's genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.ResultsA total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.ConclusionsThe use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.Trial registration prosperoDatabase registration: CRD42015024127.

Project description:BackgroundSimulation is an increasingly used novel method for the education of medical professionals. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of high-fidelity (HF) simulation compared with low-fidelity (LF) simulation or no simulation in advanced life support (ALS) training.MethodsA comprehensive search of the PubMed, Chinese Biomedicine Database, Embase, CENTRAL, ISI, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of HF simulation in ALS training. Quality assessment was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0.1. The primary outcome was the improvement of knowledge and skill performance. The secondary outcomes included the participants' confidence and satisfaction at the course conclusion, skill performance at one year, skill performance in actual resuscitation, and patient outcomes. Data were synthesized using the RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsAltogether, 25 RCTs with a total of 1,987 trainees were included in the meta-analysis. In the intervention group, 998 participants used HF manikins, whereas 989 participants received LF simulation-based or traditional training (classical training without simulation). Pooled data from the RCTs demonstrated a benefit in improvement of knowledge [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.59, P = 0.0003, I2 = 70%] and skill performance (SMD = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.21-1.04, P = 0.003, I2 = 92%) for HF simulation when compared with LF simulation and traditional training. The subgroup analysis revealed a greater benefit in knowledge with HF simulation compared with traditional training at the course conclusion (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.20-0.83, P = 0.003, I2 = 61%). Studies measuring knowledge at three months, skill performance at one year, teamwork behaviors, participants' satisfaction and confidence demonstrated no significant benefit for HF simulation.ConclusionsLearners using HF simulation more significantly benefited from the ALS training in terms of knowledge and skill performance at the course conclusion. However, further research is necessary to enhance long-term retention of knowledge and skill in actual resuscitation and patient's outcomes.

Dataset Information

Simulation based training versus non-simulation based training in anesthesiology: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Simulation based training versus non-simulation based training in anesthesiology: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets