Cadaveric simulation training is superior to no simulation training for surgical skill acquisition, per three RCTs¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In three RCTs, cadaveric simulation-trained learners showed significant improvement in most tested skill domains compared with learners receiving no simulation training. → James 2019
Evidence¶
James 2019¶
James, H. K., Chapman, A. W., Pattison, G. T. R., Griffin, D. R. and Fisher, J. D. (2019). Systematic review of the current status of cadaveric simulation for surgical training. The British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11325
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Review synthesis of three RCTs (OCEBM level 1b/2a) comparing cadaveric simulation with no simulation training. The review reports "significant improvement in most of the tested skill domains" for cadaveric-trained learners; no effect sizes printed.
"Compared with no simulation training, cadaveric simulation-trained learners showed significant improvement in most of the tested skill domains45, 46, 47."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.