CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03071367Updated Mar 7, 2017

A Comparison of Clinical Simulation and Classical Learning for Airway Management in Medical Students

An interventional study of Clinical Simulation in Educational Activities, sponsored by Fundación Santa Fe de Bogota. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-03-07.

Sponsored by Fundación Santa Fe de Bogota · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 4 years 6 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Aug 2012, registered Mar 2017).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
102
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Multiple studies have shown clinical simulation benefits over classical learning method. Research on simulation of airway management has focused on endotracheal intubation training, while research on ventilation via facemask is scant. The investigators compared both learning methods regarding the acquirement of basic skills for airway management by medical students. Students in the clinical simulation group received a 3-hour training on airway management on the first day of their 28-day anesthesia rotation, while classical learning did not. On the last day of rotation, participants were evaluated based on a validated instrument of scores. Primary outcome was airway management scores. Secondary outcomes were rate of success of intubation and incidence of complications.

02

Conditions studied

  • Educational Activities

Keywords

  • Airway Management
  • Medical students
  • Intratracheal intubation
  • Educational Technology
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Fundación Santa Fe de Bogota is the lead sponsor of 26 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Last year medical students at Universidad de los Andes
  • Over 18 year old

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous elective anesthesia rotation
  • Motor deficit affecting the upper limbs
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
102 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Clinical Simulation

    Other: Clinical Simulation

  • No intervention
    Classical Learning

Interventions

  • OtherClinical Simulation
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Airway management score

    Time frame: 28 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Successful intubation rate

    Time frame: 28 days

  2. Incidence of complications

    Time frame: 28 days

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 7, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03071367
Lead sponsor
Fundación Santa Fe de Bogota
Responsible party
Leopoldo Ferrer (Anesthesiologist, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogota) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 6, 2017
Start date
Aug 20, 2012
Primary completion
Feb 20, 2014
Completion
Jun 20, 2014
Last update
Mar 7, 2017

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion