Subgroup factors (study quality, participant status, region, simulation technique) did not explain the heterogeneity in SBL effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Subgroup analyses by study quality, participant status, study region and simulation technique did not account for the observed heterogeneity in theoretical and skill outcomes. → Wu Zeyu 2024

Evidence¶

Wu Zeyu 2024¶

Wu Zeyu, Huang Yiling, Lyu Ling, Huang Yu, Ping Fan. (2024). The efficacy of simulation-based learning versus non-simulation-based learning in endocrinology education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06010-z

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analyses of the pooled RCT data, conducted because of significant heterogeneity in theoretical and skill tests, examining quality, participant status, region and simulation technique (Table 2). The article states the four factors "did not contribute to the observed heterogeneity."

"However, the aforementioned four factors did not contribute to the observed heterogeneity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Simulation-based learning improves theoretical knowledge scores in endocrinology education compared with non-simulation-based learning — related
• Heterogeneity across flipped-classroom studies was consistently high (I² > 90%) and was largely not explained by prespecified subgroup analyses, indicating context-dependent effects — related
• Simulation-based learning consistently improves nursing students' knowledge and skills acquisition across diverse designs and simulation topics — related