Response to: Comment on: Live tissue versus simulation training for emergency procedures: Is simulation ready to replace live tissue?

We appreciate the well-written response to our study by Dr Crandall, a member of the Vanguard Society of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 1 PETA 2011 Annual Review. p. 5. Marie Crandall, Vanguard Society Member. Norfolk (VA): People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; 2011. Google Scholar and thank her for commending our efforts in conducting the study. 2 Barnes S.L. Bukoski A. Kerby J.D. Llerena L. Armstrong J.H. Strayhorn C. University of Missouri Combat Casualty Training ConsortiumLive tissue versus simulation training for emergency procedures: Is simulation ready to replace live tissue?. Surgery. 2016; 160: 997-1007 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar One of the goals of publishing this research was to generate discussion regarding the most effective and efficient training methods for our military medical personnel to save the most lives of wounded servicemen and women on the modern battlefield. Comment on: Live tissue versus simulation training for emergency procedures: Is simulation ready to replace live tissue?SurgeryVol. 161Issue 5PreviewBarnes et al1 are to be commended for their efforts in comparing live tissue training (LT) to simulation training for determining the most effective way to teach emergency medical procedures to military personnel. Their conclusion that “Wholesale abandonment of live tissue training is not warranted,” however, seems unduly weighted by a puzzling bias favoring LT rather than objective results gained from their own data, which show “no differences” between the 2 training methods in the cognitive performance and self-efficacy of the study participants, “no benefit” in psychomotor performance from LT, and “some benefit from simulation training, suggesting simulation may be superior to LT for the introduction of a new procedure to the novice learner.” Full-Text PDF