Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/21571338
Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions | |
pubmed:issue |
1
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
2011-6-13
|
pubmed:abstractText |
We analyzed studies validating the effectiveness and deficiencies of simulation for training and assessment in urology. We documented simulation types (synthetic, virtual reality and animal models), participant experience level and tasks performed. The feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact of the simulators were also evaluated.
|
pubmed:grant | |
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
AIM
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
Jul
|
pubmed:issn |
1527-3792
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:copyrightInfo |
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
pubmed:issnType |
Electronic
|
pubmed:volume |
186
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
26-34
|
pubmed:meshHeading | |
pubmed:year |
2011
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review.
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Medical Research Council Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, King's Health Partners, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom. k.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Review,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|