Claims

High-fidelity simulation training improves knowledge acquisition among practising registered nurses (moderate pooled effect)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (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 i2 Meta-analysis of six studies (185 nurses) found HFS training produced a moderate, significant improvement in knowledge acquisition compared with traditional methods (SMD = 0.65), with no heterogeneity. → Zhou Jie 2026

Evidence

Zhou Jie 2026

Zhou Jie, Zhang Guowen, Song Peige, Liaw Sok Ying, Luk Tzu Tsun. (2026). Effects of High‐Fidelity Simulation Training on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction for Practising Registered Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70206

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis of five RCTs and one quasi-experiment pooling knowledge outcomes from 185 practising registered nurses, most using self-reported author-developed instruments. The review reports "a moderate effect of HFS on knowledge acquisition" with "no notable heterogeneity". One additional study was excluded for skewness.

"The random‐effects model revealed a moderate effect of HFS on knowledge acquisition (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI, [0.35, 0.95], p < 0.01), with no notable heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.62)"

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.