Claims

Simulation-based education plus clinical teaching compared to clinical teaching only shows a large pooled advantage (SMD 0.82) in undergraduate nursing students

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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 i3 Across 11 meta-analysed studies (n=918), simulation plus clinical teaching versus clinical teaching only gave SMD = 0.82 (95% CI 0.49–1.15). → Prothero 2026

Evidence

Prothero 2026

Prothero, L., Abdulmohdi, N., Shaw, S., Edmonds, M., and Meads, C. (2026). The Effectiveness of Simulation‐Based Versus Patient‐Based Clinical Education in Nursing: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Nursing Open 13, no. 9: e70689. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.70689

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of studies combining simulation-based education with clinical teaching against clinical teaching only; the pooled SMD "gave SMD = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals = 0.49–1.15)" is at the large-effect threshold in Cohen's classification used by the review.

"Comparison 2: 11 studies (n = 918 participants) gave SMD = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals = 0.49–1.15)."

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.