Thomas Roger E, Crutcher Rodney, Lorenzetti Diane
Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta, Canada.
Can J Surg. 2007 Aug;50(4):278-90.
There is no systematic review of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of teaching surgical and emergency skills to undergraduates.
We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, DARE and the University of Toronto Continuing Medical Education database for RCTs in all languages.
We identified 19 RCTs. Four tested methods of IV access, 1 found intraosseous access faster than the umbilical vein in neonates, and 1 found that one type of intraosseous needle had higher success rates. Two RCTs of intubation skills did not identify a superior technique. One RCT of CPR found video instruction superior to the American Heart Association Heartsaver course. Of 2 RCTs of trauma skills, 1 found no improvement and 1 found improvement only on the day of instruction. One RCT found both computer and seminar training improved epistaxis management. One RCT gave students preoperative anatomy instruction, and they received higher ratings from surgeons. One RCT asked students to study surgical scenarios preoperatively, and they improved their surgical intensive care unit skills. One RCT gave students video and paper-cut instruction of the Whipple procedure; both groups improved, but there were no differences between groups. One RCT taught uteteroscopy and stone extraction and found groups that used low- and high-fidelity bench models improved, compared with the didactic group. Four of 5 RCTs of knot tying showed improvement.
This systematic review assessed the quality of RCTs used in teaching undergraduates surgical and emergency skills. There are many positive study outcomes, but there are significant methodological weaknesses in the study design. Students varied in their skills, and most did not demonstrate optimal performance in any of the procedures. This review provides a baseline for further work important to both medical education and clinical practice.
目前尚无关于向本科生教授外科和急救技能的随机对照试验(RCT)方法学质量的系统评价。
我们检索了Cochrane协作网对照试验注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、ERIC、DARE以及多伦多大学继续医学教育数据库,以查找所有语言的随机对照试验。
我们确定了19项随机对照试验。4项试验测试了静脉穿刺方法,1项试验发现新生儿骨内穿刺比脐静脉穿刺更快,1项试验发现一种骨内穿刺针成功率更高。2项插管技能随机对照试验未确定哪种技术更优。1项心肺复苏随机对照试验发现视频教学优于美国心脏协会的急救课程。在2项创伤技能随机对照试验中,1项试验未发现改善,1项试验仅在教学当天发现有改善。1项随机对照试验发现计算机培训和研讨会培训均能改善鼻出血处理。1项随机对照试验为学生提供术前解剖学指导,他们获得了外科医生更高的评分。一项随机对照试验要求学生术前研究手术场景,他们的外科重症监护病房技能得到了提高。一项随机对照试验为学生提供了Whipple手术的视频和剪纸指导;两组均有改善,但组间无差异。5项打结随机对照试验中有4项显示有改善。
本系统评价评估了用于教授本科生外科和急救技能的随机对照试验的质量。有许多积极的研究结果,但研究设计存在明显的方法学缺陷。学生的技能各不相同,大多数学生在任何一项操作中都未表现出最佳水平。本评价为医学教育和临床实践的进一步重要工作提供了基线。