RCT evidence comparing cadaveric with low-fidelity simulation is mixed: two RCTs favour cadaveric, one shows equivalence, one favours the bench model¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Of four RCTs comparing cadaveric with low-fidelity simulation, two showed cadaveric superiority, one showed equivalence with bench-model training, and one showed cadaveric training was inferior to the bench-model alternative. → 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? · review · r3

Review synthesis of four RCTs comparing cadaveric with low-fidelity simulation. The review reports "a mixed picture": two favoured cadaveric training, one found equivalence, and one found cadaveric training inferior to the bench model.

"The four RCTs48, 49, 50, 51 in this area revealed a mixed picture: two49, 51 showed superiority of cadaveric simulation training, one48 showed equivalence with low‐fidelity bench‐model training, and one50 showed that cadaveric simulation training was inferior to the bench‐model alternative."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Cadaveric simulation training is superior to no simulation training for surgical skill acquisition, per three RCTs — related
• Training on a simple low-fidelity 'choose-the-hole' bench model transferred to real clinical fibreoptic intubation performance in an RCT — related
• Validation quality does not consistently correlate with simulator fidelity, and high-fidelity VR simulators' superiority over simpler models for fibreoptic intubation has not been demonstrated — related