Effectiveness of Interprofessional Manikin-Based Simulation Training on Teamwork Among Real Teams During Trauma Resuscitation in Adult Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STATEMENT: This systematic review synthesizes the relevant evidence about the effectiveness of interprofessional manikin-based simulation training on teamwork among real teams during trauma resuscitation in adult civilian emergency departments. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, EBM reviews, PsycINFO, and Web of Science with no time limit. Only experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included. Effects of the simulation intervention on teamwork were categorized according to a modified version of the Kirkpatrick's model. From the 1120 studies found, 11 studies were included for synthesis. All studies showed immediate improvement in teamwork after training, but divergent results were found regarding skills retention. Although this review focused on interprofessional manikin-based simulations in real trauma teams, the results are similar to previous systematic reviews including different types of simulation. This raises significant questions regarding the importance of simulation design characteristics to improve teamwork in trauma care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".