↓ Skip to main content

Airway management education: simulation based training versus non-simulation based training-A systematic review and meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Airway management education: simulation based training versus non-simulation based training-A systematic review and meta-analyses
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0313-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanxia Sun, Chuxiong Pan, Tianzuo Li, Tong J. Gan

Abstract

Simulation-based training (SBT) has become a standard for medical education. However, the efficacy of simulation based training in airway management education remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate all published evidence comparing the effectiveness of SBT for airway management versus non-simulation based training (NSBT) on learner and patient outcomes. Systematic review with meta-analyses were used. Data were derived from PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to May 2016. Published comparative trials that evaluated the effect of SBT on airway management training in compared with NSBT were considered. The effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes measures. Seventeen eligible studies were included. SBT was associated with improved behavior performance [standardized mean difference (SMD):0.30, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.54] in comparison with NSBT. However, the benefits of SBT were not seen in time-skill (SMD:-0.13, 95% CI: -0.82 to 0.52), written examination score (SMD: 0.39, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.86) and success rate of procedure completion on patients [relative risk (RR): 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.66]. SBT may be not superior to NSBT on airway management training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 36 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Engineering 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#13,503,893
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#392
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,769
of 424,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 424,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.