HF simulation improves ALS knowledge at course conclusion more than LF simulation or traditional training (pooled SMD = 0.38)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Pooled RCT data show a statistically significant benefit in knowledge improvement for HF simulation compared with LF simulation and traditional training at course conclusion (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18–0.59, P = 0.0003, I2 = 70%). → Zeng Qin 2023

Evidence¶

Zeng Qin 2023¶

Zeng Qin, Wang Kai, Liu Wei-xin, Zeng Jiu-zhi, Li Xing-lan, Zhang Qing-feng, Ren Shang-qing, Xu Wen-ming. (2023). Efficacy of high-fidelity simulation in advanced life support training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04654-x

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs reporting knowledge at course conclusion, synthesized in RevMan 5.4 with a random-effect model after significant heterogeneity (I2 = 70%). The pooled estimate was "SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18–0.59, P = 0.0003". Subgroup and sensitivity analyses attributed heterogeneity to variation in course design, participant types, and outcome measures.

"Pooled data from the RCTs demonstrated a benefit in improvement of knowledge for HF simulation when compared with LF simulation and traditional training (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18–0.59, P = 0.0003, I2 = 70%]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• HF simulation improves ALS skill performance at course conclusion versus LF simulation and traditional training (pooled SMD = 0.63) with high heterogeneity — related
• Skill benefit of HF simulation holds against LF simulation (SMD = 0.36) but not against traditional training (SMD = -0.08) — related
• Knowledge benefit of HF simulation is greater against traditional training (SMD = 0.71) than against LF simulation (SMD = 0.22) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• HF simulation shows no significant benefit for satisfaction, confidence, or teamwork behaviors, and no long-term knowledge retention benefit — related
• High-fidelity simulation training improves knowledge acquisition among practising registered nurses (moderate pooled effect) — related
• High-fidelity simulation training improves professional skills among practising registered nurses (moderate pooled effect) — related
• High-fidelity simulation training yields a large effect on learning satisfaction among practising registered nurses — related
• The effect of high-fidelity simulation on practising nurses' self-confidence is inconclusive, varying by study design — related
• Participant seniority moderates the benefit of HF simulation: residents and third/fourth-year students benefit, first-year students do not — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• High-fidelity simulation shows only small-to-moderate benefits over low-fidelity simulation in skill performance (SMD 0.64) and knowledge (SMD 0.39) — related
• High-fidelity simulation outperforms traditional training in skill performance (SMD 1.63) and knowledge (SMD 0.69) immediately after training — related
• For cognitive outcomes, high-fidelity simulation shows the largest effect size (0.50) — related
• Simulation-based nursing education shows a medium-to-large pooled effect on learning outcomes (SMD = 0.70) — related