MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/prs.0000000000005093

Медицинская библиотека · Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019

A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Trial Comparing Digital Simulation to Textbook for Cleft Surgery Education.

Plana Natalie M, Rifkin William J, Kantar Rami S, David Joshua A, Maliha Samantha G, Farber Scott J, Staffenberg David A, Grayson Barry H, Diaz-Siso J Rodrigo, Flores Roberto L

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Simulation is progressively being integrated into surgical training; however, its utility in plastic surgery has not been well described. The authors present a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing digital simulation to a surgical textbook for conceptualization of cleft lip repair.

METHODS

Thirty-five medical students were randomized to learning cleft repair using a simulator or a textbook. Participants outlined markings for a standard cleft lip repair before (preintervention) and after (postintervention) 20 minutes of studying their respective resource. Two expert reviewers blindly graded markings according to a 10-point scale, on two separate occasions. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Paired and independent t tests were performed to compare scoring between study groups. A validated student satisfaction survey was administered to assess the two resources separately.

RESULTS

Intrarater grading reliability was excellent for both raters for preintervention and postintervention grading (rater 1, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.94 and 0.95, respectively; rater 2, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.60 and 0.92, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean preintervention performances for both groups were comparable (0.82 ± 1.17 versus 0.64 ± 0.95; p = 0.31). Significant improvement from preintervention to postintervention performance was observed in the textbook (0.82 ± 1.17 versus 3.50 ± 1.62; p < 0.001) and simulator (0.64 ± 0.95 versus 6.44 ± 2.03; p < 0.001) groups. However, the simulator group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement (5.81 ± 2.01 versus 2.68 ± 1.49; p < 0.001). Participants reported the simulator to be more effective (p < 0.001) and a clearer tool (p < 0.001), that allowed better learning (p < 0.001) than textbooks. All participants would recommend the simulator to others.

CONCLUSION

The authors present evidence from a prospective, randomized, blinded trial supporting online digital simulation as a superior educational resource for novice learners, compared with traditional textbooks.

Для цитирования: Plana Natalie M, Rifkin William J, Kantar Rami S, David Joshua A, Maliha Samantha G, Farber Scott J, Staffenberg David A, Grayson Barry H, Diaz-Siso J Rodrigo, Flores Roberto L. A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Trial Comparing Digital Simulation to Textbook for Cleft Surgery Education.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000005093.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.