Simulation-based bronchoscopy training: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Cassie Kennedy, Fabien Maldonado, David Allan Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is increasingly used, but effectiveness remains uncertain. We sought to perform a comprehensive synthesis of published work on simulationbased bronchoscopy training. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. We included all original studies involving health professionals that evaluated, in comparison with no intervention or an alternative instructional approach, simulation-based training for flexible or rigid bronchoscopy. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Results: From an initial pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 17 studies evaluating simulationbased bronchoscopy training. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with large benefits on skills and behaviors (pooled effect size, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.82-1.60]; n = 8 studies) and moderate benefits on time (0.62 [95% CI, 0.12-1.13]; n = 7). In comparison with clinical instruction, behaviors with real patients showed nonsignificant effects favoring simulation for time (0.61 [95% CI, -1.47 to 2.69]) and process (0.33 [95% CI, -1.46 to 2.11]) outcomes (n = 2 studies each), although variation in training time might account for these differences. Four studies compared alternate simulation-based training approaches. Inductive analysis to inform instructional design suggested that longer or more structured training is more effective, authentic clinical context adds value, and animal models and plastic part-task models may be superior to more costly virtual-reality simulators. Conclusions: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is effective in comparison with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies are few.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)183-192
Number of pages10
JournalChest
Volume144
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Bronchoscopy
Meta-Analysis
MEDLINE
Plastics
Animal Models
Health
Simulation Training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Simulation-based bronchoscopy training : Systematic review and meta-analysis. / Kennedy, Cassie; Maldonado, Fabien; Cook, David Allan.

In: Chest, Vol. 144, No. 1, 07.2013, p. 183-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d05f1764f03b439da56893a3be476d20,
title = "Simulation-based bronchoscopy training: Systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is increasingly used, but effectiveness remains uncertain. We sought to perform a comprehensive synthesis of published work on simulationbased bronchoscopy training. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. We included all original studies involving health professionals that evaluated, in comparison with no intervention or an alternative instructional approach, simulation-based training for flexible or rigid bronchoscopy. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Results: From an initial pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 17 studies evaluating simulationbased bronchoscopy training. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with large benefits on skills and behaviors (pooled effect size, 1.21 [95{\%} CI, 0.82-1.60]; n = 8 studies) and moderate benefits on time (0.62 [95{\%} CI, 0.12-1.13]; n = 7). In comparison with clinical instruction, behaviors with real patients showed nonsignificant effects favoring simulation for time (0.61 [95{\%} CI, -1.47 to 2.69]) and process (0.33 [95{\%} CI, -1.46 to 2.11]) outcomes (n = 2 studies each), although variation in training time might account for these differences. Four studies compared alternate simulation-based training approaches. Inductive analysis to inform instructional design suggested that longer or more structured training is more effective, authentic clinical context adds value, and animal models and plastic part-task models may be superior to more costly virtual-reality simulators. Conclusions: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is effective in comparison with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies are few.",
author = "Cassie Kennedy and Fabien Maldonado and Cook, {David Allan}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1378/chest.12-1786",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "183--192",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simulation-based bronchoscopy training

T2 - Systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Kennedy, Cassie

AU - Maldonado, Fabien

AU - Cook, David Allan

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - Background: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is increasingly used, but effectiveness remains uncertain. We sought to perform a comprehensive synthesis of published work on simulationbased bronchoscopy training. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. We included all original studies involving health professionals that evaluated, in comparison with no intervention or an alternative instructional approach, simulation-based training for flexible or rigid bronchoscopy. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Results: From an initial pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 17 studies evaluating simulationbased bronchoscopy training. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with large benefits on skills and behaviors (pooled effect size, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.82-1.60]; n = 8 studies) and moderate benefits on time (0.62 [95% CI, 0.12-1.13]; n = 7). In comparison with clinical instruction, behaviors with real patients showed nonsignificant effects favoring simulation for time (0.61 [95% CI, -1.47 to 2.69]) and process (0.33 [95% CI, -1.46 to 2.11]) outcomes (n = 2 studies each), although variation in training time might account for these differences. Four studies compared alternate simulation-based training approaches. Inductive analysis to inform instructional design suggested that longer or more structured training is more effective, authentic clinical context adds value, and animal models and plastic part-task models may be superior to more costly virtual-reality simulators. Conclusions: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is effective in comparison with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies are few.

AB - Background: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is increasingly used, but effectiveness remains uncertain. We sought to perform a comprehensive synthesis of published work on simulationbased bronchoscopy training. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. We included all original studies involving health professionals that evaluated, in comparison with no intervention or an alternative instructional approach, simulation-based training for flexible or rigid bronchoscopy. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Results: From an initial pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 17 studies evaluating simulationbased bronchoscopy training. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with large benefits on skills and behaviors (pooled effect size, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.82-1.60]; n = 8 studies) and moderate benefits on time (0.62 [95% CI, 0.12-1.13]; n = 7). In comparison with clinical instruction, behaviors with real patients showed nonsignificant effects favoring simulation for time (0.61 [95% CI, -1.47 to 2.69]) and process (0.33 [95% CI, -1.46 to 2.11]) outcomes (n = 2 studies each), although variation in training time might account for these differences. Four studies compared alternate simulation-based training approaches. Inductive analysis to inform instructional design suggested that longer or more structured training is more effective, authentic clinical context adds value, and animal models and plastic part-task models may be superior to more costly virtual-reality simulators. Conclusions: Simulation-based bronchoscopy training is effective in comparison with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies are few.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880052733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880052733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1378/chest.12-1786

DO - 10.1378/chest.12-1786

M3 - Article

C2 - 23370487

AN - SCOPUS:84880052733

VL - 144

SP - 183

EP - 192

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 1

ER -