Of 939 screened studies, only 17 articles validating 29 airway simulators met inclusion criteria, and most studies assessed only one or two validity domains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A systematic review found only 17 validation studies covering 29 definitive airway simulators, with most studies assessing only one or two validity domains. → McCarthy Roisin 2026

Evidence¶

McCarthy Roisin 2026¶

McCarthy Roisin, Maher Liam, O'Dea Angela. (2026). Validation status of definitive airway management simulators: a systematic review. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2026.01.027

q3 · i? · review · r3

Systematic review searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to September 2025 following PRISMA guidelines; 939 records screened and 17 articles included. The review reports that "most studies assessing only one or two domains" of simulator validity.

"From 939 studies screened, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria, and 29 different simulators were included. Validation domains varied widely, with most studies assessing only one or two domains."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Predictive validity of airway simulators is rarely evaluated, and the two tracheal-intubation studies assessing it found no improvement in real-world neonatal intubation outcomes after simulator training — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Front-of-neck access simulators are severely under-validated, with only one study meeting inclusion criteria, and real-world predictive validity cannot ethically be evaluated for FONA — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• All included simulation-based research studies were judged to have high or critical risk of bias, and only 16 of 2481 screened studies met Level 4 inclusion criteria — a narrower finding that bears on this claim