Claims

Knowledge benefit of HF simulation is greater against traditional training (SMD = 0.71) than against LF simulation (SMD = 0.22)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i1 Subgroup analysis found a knowledge benefit for HF simulation compared with LF simulation (SMD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09–0.35, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and a larger benefit compared with traditional training (SMD = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51–0.97, P = 0.00001, I2 = 29%). → 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 · r2

Subgroup analysis of the knowledge meta-analysis splitting comparators. Against LF simulation the estimate was "SMD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09–0.35, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%"; against traditional training "SMD = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51–0.97, P = 0.00001, I2 = 29%" (reported in Supplement 2).

"Subgroup analysis revealed that a benefit in knowledge with HF simulation compared with LF simulation (SMD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09–0.35, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and traditional training (SMD = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51–0.97, P = 0.00001, I2 = 29%)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.