↓ Skip to main content

Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1623-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Archana Nimbalkar, Dipen Patel, Amit Kungwani, Ajay Phatak, Rohitkumar Vasa, Somashekhar Nimbalkar

Abstract

Knowledge acquisition and skill maintenance are important in learning neonatal resuscitation. Traditionally this is taught by using low fidelity mannequins. Technological advancement enabled a move towards high fidelity mannequins. In a low resources setting, it is incumbent to ensure reasonable cost benefit ratio before investing in technology. A randomized control trial was conducted in 101 undergraduate students who were assigned to conventional Resusci(®) Baby Basic or SimNewB group over a period of 3 days. The lectures were the same for both groups but the hands on training was on different mannequins. There were five experienced and accredited teachers who were standardized for training the students. Both the groups received a written test and a Megacode before and after the training, and 3 months later a post-test. The baseline written exam score (p = 0.07), Megacode assessment score (p = 0.19) and sex distribution (p = 0.17) were similar in both groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in the written exam score as well as in the Megacode assessment score at post-test and 3 months (retention) period. However there was no significant difference in the "improvement" between both the groups with respect to written exam (p = 0.38) or Megacode assessment (p = 0.92). Further the post-test and 3 month scores were comparable for the skills as well as content components suggesting that the skills were retained in 3 months with an opportunity of self learning them. Due diligence is a caveat before contemplating the acquisition of high fidelity mannequins by educational centers for neonatal resuscitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Psychology 7 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 37 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,398,970
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,319
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,033
of 285,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#95
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.