Claims

High-fidelity simulation improved pharmacology learning and retention compared to low-fidelity and sham groups

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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 i? High-fidelity simulation significantly increased correct answers (p<0.001) and preserved retention, unlike sham and low-fidelity groups. → Owolabi Joshua O. 2025

Evidence

Owolabi Joshua O. 2025

Owolabi Joshua O., Gardner Katresa, Agboola Rasheed, Yesudas Rekha R., Shaw Jennifer H. (2025). Use of simulation for teaching biomedical sciences to undergraduate medical students- a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07819-y

q3 · i? · review · r3

Randomized controlled trial of 90 fifth-year Italian medical students (30 per group: sham, low fidelity, high fidelity) using a 20-item MCQ pharmacology assessment; "High fidelity SIM significantly increased correct answers (p<0.001)" and retention declined only in sham and low-fidelity groups. No effect size printed.

"High fidelity SIM significantly increased correct answers (p<0.001); no difference between sham and low fidelity; there was a statistically significant decline in retention for sham and low fidelity but not for high fidelity."

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.