Free Access
Issue
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 42, Number 4, December 2010
Page(s) 305 - 312
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/201042305
Published online 15 December 2010
  1. Vozenilek J, Huff JS, Reznek M, Gordon JA. See one, do one, teach one: Advanced technology in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:1149–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Voelker R. Medical simulation gets real. JAMA. 2009;302:2190–2. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Use of simulation-based education to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1420–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gorman PJ, Meier AH, Rawn C, Krummel TM. The future of medical education is no longer blood and guts, it is bits and bytes. Am J Surg. 2000;180:353–6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Decker S, Sportsman S, Puetz L, Billings L. The evolution of simulation and its contribution to competency. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2008;39:74–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaakinen J, Arwood E. Systematic review of nursing simulation literature for use of learning theory. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2009;6:16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Medley CF, Horne C. Using simulation technology for undergraduate nursing education J Nurs Educ. 2005;44:31–4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Turkmen A, Rosinski D, Noyes N. A simulator for perfusion training. Perfusion. 2007;22:397–400. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Morris RW, Pybus DA. “Orpheus” cardiopulmonary bypass simulation system. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2007;39:228–33. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Power G, Miller A. Preliminary analysis of perfusionists’ strategies for managing routine and failure mode scenarios in cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2007;39:160–7. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fernandez A. Simulation in perfusion: Where do we go from here? Perfusion. 2010;25:17–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Toomasian JM, Searles B, Kurusz M. The evolution of perfusion education in America. Perfusion. 2003;18:257–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Austin JW, Evans EL, Hoerr HRJr. Distributed perfusion educational model: A shift in perfusion economic realities. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2005;37:360–3. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Alinier G. A typology of educationally focused medical simulation tools. Med Teach. 2007;29:e243–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hartland W, Biddle C, Fallacaro M. Audiovisual facilitation of clinical knowledge: A paradigm for dispersed student education based on Paivio’s dual coding theory. AANA J. 2008;76:194–8. [Google Scholar]
  16. Spickard A, Smithers J, Cordray D, Gigante J, Wofford JL. A randomised trial of an online lecture with and without audio. Med Educ. 2004;38:787–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dede C. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science. 2009;323:66–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fleming ND. I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In: Zelmer A, ed. Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Higher Education Research and Development 1995:308–13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Allchin L, Dzurec LC, Engler AJ. Psychological type and explanatory style of nursing students and clinical faculty. J Nurs Educ. 2009;48:196–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. McDonough JR. Learning styles: An issue in clinical education? AANA J. 2005;73:89. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rogers JL, Lautar CJ, Dunn LR. Allied health students’ perceptions of effective clinical instruction. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2010;29:63–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15:455–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.