Claims

Virtual simulations and mannequins or real persons show no significant difference in fostering clinical reasoning, but the evidence is inconclusive

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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? Pooled RCT evidence shows no significant difference between VSs and mannequins or RPs on clinical reasoning (SMD=0.29), but trial sequential analysis showed the required information size had not been reached. → Jiang N 2024

Evidence

Jiang N 2024

Jiang N, Zhang Y, Liang S, Lyu X, Chen S, Huang X, Pan H. (2024). Effectiveness of Virtual Simulations Versus Mannequins and Real Persons in Medical and Nursing Education: Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/56195

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of 9 RCTs assessing clinical reasoning. Pooled SMD=0.29 (95% CI –0.26 to 0.85) was not significant; TSA showed the RIS had not been reached, implying further studies are needed to verify the insignificant result. Leave-one-out analysis was consistent.

"the pooled effect size did not reflect a significant difference between VSs and mannequins or RPs on the outcome of procedural skills (SMD=0.29; 95% CI –0.26 to 0.85; I2=88%; P<.01)"

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.