Claims

Simulation training across medical and surgical scenarios yields significantly higher OSCE scores than didactic lectures across two year groups

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
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.

q2 i? Across two year groups, the mean score for 16 OSCE stations was significantly better for students who had undergone simulation training than for the didactic lecture group. → 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

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review attributing this to Zhang et al.'s study in which students were pre-selected into simulation or didactic lecture groups by facility variants across clinical sites, simulating both medical and surgical scenarios. The review reports the printed means and p-values for both year groups.

"Across two year groups, the mean score for 16 OSCE stations was significantly better in those who had undergone simulation training. The mean score in 2013 for the simulation was 80.95±0.61 versus 69.91±1.24 for the didactic lecture group (p=0.0114), and 86.12±0.56 versus 73.58±1.34 in 2014 (p=0.006)."

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.