↓ Skip to main content

Cadaver-based training is superior to simulation training for cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Cadaver-based training is superior to simulation training for cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11739-016-1439-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Kimo Takayesu, David Peak, Dana Stearns

Abstract

Emergency medicine (EM) training mandates that residents be able to competently perform low-frequency critical procedures upon graduation. Simulation is the main method of training in addition to clinical patient care. Access to cadaver-based training is limited due to cost and availability. The relative fidelity and perceived value of cadaver-based simulation training is unknown. This pilot study sought to describe the relative value of cadaver training compared to simulation for cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy. To perform a pilot study to assess whether there is a significant difference in fidelity and educational experience of cadaver-based training compared to simulation training. To understand how important this difference is in training residents in low-frequency procedures. Twenty-two senior EM residents (PGY3 and 4) who had completed standard simulation training on cricothyrotomy and tube thoracostomy participated in a formalin-fixed cadaver training program. Participants were surveyed on the relative fidelity of the training using a 100 point visual analogue scale (VAS) with 100 defined as equal to performing the procedure on a real patient. Respondents were also asked to estimate how much the cadaveric training improved the comfort level with performing the procedures on a scale between 0 and 100 %. Open-response feedback was also collected. The response rate was 100 % (22/22). The average fidelity of the cadaver versus simulation training was 79.9 ± 7.0 vs. 34.7 ± 13.4 for cricothyrotomy (p < 0.0001) and 86 ± 8.6 vs. 38.4 ± 19.3 for tube thoracostomy (p < 0.0001). Improvement in comfort levels performing procedures after the cadaveric training was rated as 78.5 ± 13.3 for tube thoracostomy and 78.7 ± 14.3 for cricothyrotomy. All respondents felt this difference in fidelity to be important for procedural training with 21/22 respondents specifically citing the importance of superior landmark and tissue fidelity compared to simulation training. Cadaver-based training provides superior landmark and tissue fidelity compared to simulation training and may be a valuable addition to EM residency training for certain low-frequency procedures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Unspecified 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Other 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 57%
Unspecified 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,682,839
of 12,572,556 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#73
of 389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,814
of 261,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#8
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,572,556 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 261,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.