↓ Skip to main content

High-fidelity simulation versus case-based discussion for teaching medical students in Brazil about pediatric emergencies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
High-fidelity simulation versus case-based discussion for teaching medical students in Brazil about pediatric emergencies
Published in
Clinics, June 2015
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2015(06)02
Pubmed ID
Authors

TB Couto, SC Farhat, GL Geis, O Olsen, C Schvartsman

Abstract

To compare high-fidelity simulation with case-based discussion for teaching medical students about pediatric emergencies, as assessed by a knowledge post-test, a knowledge retention test and a survey of satisfaction with the method. This was a non-randomized controlled study using a crossover design for the methods, as well as multiple-choice questionnaire tests and a satisfaction survey. Final-year medical students were allocated into two groups: group 1 participated in an anaphylaxis simulation and a discussion of a supraventricular tachycardia case, and conversely, group 2 participated in a discussion of an anaphylaxis case and a supraventricular tachycardia simulation. Students were tested on each theme at the end of their rotation (post-test) and 4-6 months later (retention test). Most students (108, or 66.3%) completed all of the tests. The mean scores for simulation versus case-based discussion were respectively 43.6% versus 46.6% for the anaphylaxis pre-test (p=0.42), 63.5% versus 67.8% for the post-test (p=0.13) and 61.5% versus 65.5% for the retention test (p=0.19). Additionally, the mean scores were respectively 33.9% versus 31.6% for the supraventricular tachycardia pre-test (p=0.44), 42.5% versus 47.7% for the post-test (p=0.09) and 41.5% versus 39.5% for the retention test (p=0.47). For both themes, there was improvement between the pre-test and the post-test (p<0.05), and no significant difference was observed between the post-test and the retention test (p>0.05). Moreover, the satisfaction survey revealed a preference for simulation (p<0.001). As a single intervention, simulation is not significantly different from case-based discussion in terms of acquisition and retention of knowledge but is superior in terms of student satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 44%
Psychology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,853,864
of 12,516,869 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#254
of 366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,539
of 232,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,516,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 232,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.