NeoNatalie Versus NeoNatalie Live Simulation for Training Undergraduate Students in Neonatal Resuscitation-A Randomized Control Trial.

IF 1.3 Q3 PEDIATRICS
International Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-05-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijpe/3159205
Anish Sinha, Somashekhar Nimbalkar, Dipti Shah, Purvi Patel, Jaimin Patel, Qury Nagadia, Mayur Shinde, Reshma Pujara, Dipen Patel
{"title":"NeoNatalie Versus NeoNatalie Live Simulation for Training Undergraduate Students in Neonatal Resuscitation-A Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Anish Sinha, Somashekhar Nimbalkar, Dipti Shah, Purvi Patel, Jaimin Patel, Qury Nagadia, Mayur Shinde, Reshma Pujara, Dipen Patel","doi":"10.1155/ijpe/3159205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The most used manikin for neonatal resuscitation training is NeoNatalie (N), a low-fidelity manikin. A new manikin, NeoNatalie Live (NL), has been developed with more fidelity. We completed a noninferiority RCT to evaluate skill acquisition and to assess retention after 4 months of using these manikins. <b>Methodology:</b> Performance evaluation test (PET), a 14-item checklist, was used to assess students' skills before and after training and after 4 months. The maximum score was 100, and the noninferiority limit was 5. One hundred forty-three medical students were assigned randomly into two groups: N (<i>n</i> = 72) and NL (<i>n</i> = 71). Half of each group was evaluated on a simulator different from the one they were trained on. <b>Results:</b> Mean (SD) pretest PET scores (before training) for the NL and N groups were comparable across groups (39.5 [18.15] vs. 34.8 [19.10]; <i>p</i> = 0.13). The PET score was comparable between NL and N after training (82.46 [10.28] vs. 80.52 [13.07], absolute difference 1.93; 95% CI [-1.956343, 5.830363]; <i>p</i> = 0.83 [1-sided]). NL was statistically noninferior to N as the lower bound of 95% CI of absolute difference is greater than the noninferiority margin (-1.95 > -5). A similar finding was observed in retention after 4 months (76.09 [15.80] vs. 73.33 [18.42]; absolute difference 2.75; 95% CI [-2.92457, 8.43271], <i>p</i> = 0.83 [1-sided]). The mean gain of PET score within the group (posttest minus pretest) for NL and N was comparable (42.97 [17.11] vs. 45.73 [19.51]; absolute difference 2.76; 95% CI [-8.835228, 3.306668], <i>p</i> = 0.81 [1-sided]). <b>Conclusion:</b> There was an improvement in scores in the posttest for both manikins. The NL was noninferior as compared to N.</p>","PeriodicalId":51591,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"2025 ","pages":"3159205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12122120/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijpe/3159205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The most used manikin for neonatal resuscitation training is NeoNatalie (N), a low-fidelity manikin. A new manikin, NeoNatalie Live (NL), has been developed with more fidelity. We completed a noninferiority RCT to evaluate skill acquisition and to assess retention after 4 months of using these manikins. Methodology: Performance evaluation test (PET), a 14-item checklist, was used to assess students' skills before and after training and after 4 months. The maximum score was 100, and the noninferiority limit was 5. One hundred forty-three medical students were assigned randomly into two groups: N (n = 72) and NL (n = 71). Half of each group was evaluated on a simulator different from the one they were trained on. Results: Mean (SD) pretest PET scores (before training) for the NL and N groups were comparable across groups (39.5 [18.15] vs. 34.8 [19.10]; p = 0.13). The PET score was comparable between NL and N after training (82.46 [10.28] vs. 80.52 [13.07], absolute difference 1.93; 95% CI [-1.956343, 5.830363]; p = 0.83 [1-sided]). NL was statistically noninferior to N as the lower bound of 95% CI of absolute difference is greater than the noninferiority margin (-1.95 > -5). A similar finding was observed in retention after 4 months (76.09 [15.80] vs. 73.33 [18.42]; absolute difference 2.75; 95% CI [-2.92457, 8.43271], p = 0.83 [1-sided]). The mean gain of PET score within the group (posttest minus pretest) for NL and N was comparable (42.97 [17.11] vs. 45.73 [19.51]; absolute difference 2.76; 95% CI [-8.835228, 3.306668], p = 0.81 [1-sided]). Conclusion: There was an improvement in scores in the posttest for both manikins. The NL was noninferior as compared to N.

新生儿与新生儿实况模拟在新生儿复苏训练中的应用——一项随机对照试验。
背景:新生儿复苏训练中使用最多的人体模型是NeoNatalie (N),这是一种低保真度的人体模型。一种新的人体模型,NeoNatalie Live (NL),已经开发出更逼真的模型。我们完成了一项非劣效性随机对照试验,以评估使用这些人体模型4个月后的技能习得和保留情况。方法:采用绩效评估测试(PET),采用14项检查表对学员培训前后和4个月后的技能进行评估。满分为100分,非劣效性限为5分。143名医学生随机分为N组(N = 72)和NL组(N = 71)。每组一半的人在不同于他们训练时使用的模拟器上进行评估。结果:NL组和N组训练前PET前测平均分(SD)组间具有可比性(39.5[18.15]对34.8 [19.10];P = 0.13)。训练后NL与N的PET评分具有可比性(82.46[10.28]比80.52[13.07],绝对差1.93;95% ci [-1.956343, 5.830363];P = 0.83[单侧])。NL在统计学上不劣于N,因为绝对差异的95% CI下界大于非劣效边际(-1.95 > -5)。4个月后的保留率也有类似的发现(76.09 [15.80]vs. 73.33 [18.42];绝对差2.75;95% CI [-2.92457, 8.43271], p = 0.83[单侧])。NL和N组内PET评分(测后减测前)的平均增益具有可比性(42.97[17.11]对45.73 [19.51];绝对差2.76;95% CI [-8.835228, 3.306668], p = 0.81[单侧])。结论:两种人体模型的后测评分均有改善。与N相比,NL并不差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Pediatrics is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original researcharticles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pediatric research. The journal accepts submissions presented as an original article, short communication, case report, review article, systematic review, or letter to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信