Abstract
We aimed to assess effectiveness of simulation for teaching medical students critical care medicine and to assess which simulation methods were most useful. We searched AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ERIC, BEI, AEI, plus bibliographies andcitations, to July 2013. Randomised controlled trials comparing effectiveness ofsimulation with another educational intervention, or no teaching, for teaching medical students critical care medicine were included. Assessments for inclusion, quality and data extraction were duplicated and results synthesised using meta-analysis.
We included 22 RCTs (n=1325). Fifteen studies comparing simulation with otherteaching found simulation to be more effective (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.24;p<0.001; I2 89%). High-fidelity simulation was more effective than low-fidelity and subgrouping supported high-fidelity simulation being more effective than other methods. Simulation improved skill acquisition (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53) but was no better than other teaching in knowledge acquisition (SMD 0.41, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.91).
We included 22 RCTs (n=1325). Fifteen studies comparing simulation with otherteaching found simulation to be more effective (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.24;p<0.001; I2 89%). High-fidelity simulation was more effective than low-fidelity and subgrouping supported high-fidelity simulation being more effective than other methods. Simulation improved skill acquisition (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53) but was no better than other teaching in knowledge acquisition (SMD 0.41, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.91).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 104–116 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Simulation in Healthcare |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 5 Dec 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2017 |
Keywords
- medical education
- medical students
- medical simulation
- meta-analysis
- Critical Care