Claims

In a randomised crossover trial, simulation training produced a 22% absolute increase in scores for assessing critically unwell patients versus didactic lectures

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · 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? 96% of students performed better when trained with simulation, with an overall 22% absolute increase in scores (95% CI 18-26%) compared to traditional didactic lectures. → McInerney Niall 2022

Evidence

McInerney Niall 2022

McInerney Niall, Nally D., Khan M.F., Heneghan H., Cahill R.A. (2022). Performance effects of simulation training for medical students – a systematic review. GMS Journal for Medical Education. https://www.egms.de/en/journals/zma/2022-39/zma001572.shtml

q3 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review attributing this to McCoy et al.'s prospective randomised crossover study comparing simulation training to traditional didactic lectures for assessing critically unwell patients (myocardial infarction or anaphylaxis), with performance evaluated in real-time during simulation. The review reports a "22% absolute increase in scores (95% CI 18-26%)"; no standardised effect size was printed.

"96% of students performed better when trained with simulation. Overall, simulation training resulted in a 22% absolute increase in scores (95% CI 18-26%)."

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.