Aaron Donoghue , Katherine Allan , Sebastian Schnaubelt , Andrea Cortegiani , Robert Greif , Adam Cheng , Andrew Lockey
{"title":"人体物理现实主义复苏教育:系统回顾","authors":"Aaron Donoghue , Katherine Allan , Sebastian Schnaubelt , Andrea Cortegiani , Robert Greif , Adam Cheng , Andrew Lockey","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To evaluate the impact of higher physical realism of manikins on educational and clinical outcomes during life support education.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This systematic review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted from January 1, 2005 until April 30, 2024. Studies comparing training with higher physical realism manikins and lower realism manikins were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing manikins to other forms of training (e.g. screen-based, virtual reality) were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) for randomized trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. For outcomes reported by four or more randomized studies, random effects <em>meta</em>-analysis using standardized mean difference was performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 1276 articles identified and screened, 21 articles comprised the final review (19 randomized trials, 2 observational studies). Meta-analysis of eight RCTs reporting simulation skill performance in a simulated clinical scenario at course conclusion demonstrated a benefit from the use of higher- realism manikins compared with lower realism manikins (standardized mean difference 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 – 1.25). Meta-analysis of seven RCTs reporting knowledge at course conclusion showed no significant difference between the use of both types of manikins. Significant risk of bias and a high degree of heterogeneity were found among the included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This systematic review found that higher manikin realism during resuscitation training was associated with improved simulated clinical scenario performance at course conclusion; without an effect on knowledge at course conclusion. Future studies should examine the impact of resource requirements for high realism simulation on generalizability and implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100940"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Manikin physical realism for resuscitation education: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Donoghue , Katherine Allan , Sebastian Schnaubelt , Andrea Cortegiani , Robert Greif , Adam Cheng , Andrew Lockey\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To evaluate the impact of higher physical realism of manikins on educational and clinical outcomes during life support education.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This systematic review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted from January 1, 2005 until April 30, 2024. Studies comparing training with higher physical realism manikins and lower realism manikins were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing manikins to other forms of training (e.g. screen-based, virtual reality) were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) for randomized trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. For outcomes reported by four or more randomized studies, random effects <em>meta</em>-analysis using standardized mean difference was performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 1276 articles identified and screened, 21 articles comprised the final review (19 randomized trials, 2 observational studies). Meta-analysis of eight RCTs reporting simulation skill performance in a simulated clinical scenario at course conclusion demonstrated a benefit from the use of higher- realism manikins compared with lower realism manikins (standardized mean difference 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 – 1.25). Meta-analysis of seven RCTs reporting knowledge at course conclusion showed no significant difference between the use of both types of manikins. Significant risk of bias and a high degree of heterogeneity were found among the included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This systematic review found that higher manikin realism during resuscitation training was associated with improved simulated clinical scenario performance at course conclusion; without an effect on knowledge at course conclusion. Future studies should examine the impact of resource requirements for high realism simulation on generalizability and implementation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100940\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000773\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的评价人体模型在生命支持教育中较高的物理真实感对教育和临床结果的影响。方法本系统评价是国际复苏联络委员会(ILCOR)持续证据评估过程的一部分。从2005年1月1日至2024年4月30日对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane进行了检索。比较高真实度人体模型和低真实度人体模型训练的研究符合纳入条件。将人体模型与其他形式的训练(如基于屏幕、虚拟现实)进行比较的研究被排除在外。随机试验使用Cochrane风险偏倚2 (RoB 2)评估偏倚风险,观察性研究使用非随机干预研究(ROBINS-I)评估偏倚风险。对于四个或更多随机研究报告的结果,采用标准化平均差进行随机效应荟萃分析。在鉴定和筛选的1276篇文章中,21篇文章构成了最终的综述(19项随机试验,2项观察性研究)。8项随机对照试验的荟萃分析报告了在课程结束时模拟临床场景中的模拟技能表现,结果表明使用高逼真度的人体模型比使用低逼真度的人体模型有好处(标准化平均差0.66,95% CI 0.08 - 1.25)。七项报告课程结束时知识的随机对照试验的荟萃分析显示,两种类型的人体模型的使用没有显著差异。在纳入的研究中发现了显著的偏倚风险和高度异质性。结论:本系统综述发现,在复苏训练过程中,较高的人体模型真实感与课程结束时模拟临床情景表现的改善有关;在课程结束时对知识没有影响。未来的研究应检查高真实感模拟的资源需求对推广和实施的影响。
Manikin physical realism for resuscitation education: A systematic review
Aim
To evaluate the impact of higher physical realism of manikins on educational and clinical outcomes during life support education.
Methods
This systematic review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted from January 1, 2005 until April 30, 2024. Studies comparing training with higher physical realism manikins and lower realism manikins were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing manikins to other forms of training (e.g. screen-based, virtual reality) were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) for randomized trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. For outcomes reported by four or more randomized studies, random effects meta-analysis using standardized mean difference was performed.
Results
Of the 1276 articles identified and screened, 21 articles comprised the final review (19 randomized trials, 2 observational studies). Meta-analysis of eight RCTs reporting simulation skill performance in a simulated clinical scenario at course conclusion demonstrated a benefit from the use of higher- realism manikins compared with lower realism manikins (standardized mean difference 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 – 1.25). Meta-analysis of seven RCTs reporting knowledge at course conclusion showed no significant difference between the use of both types of manikins. Significant risk of bias and a high degree of heterogeneity were found among the included studies.
Conclusion
This systematic review found that higher manikin realism during resuscitation training was associated with improved simulated clinical scenario performance at course conclusion; without an effect on knowledge at course conclusion. Future studies should examine the impact of resource requirements for high realism simulation on generalizability and implementation.