Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25342926›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2014

How valid are commercially available medical simulators?

Jj Stunt, Ph Wulms, Gm Kerkhoffs, J Dankelman, Cn van Dijk, Gjm Tuijthof

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrates sufficient face validity.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Objective Evaluation of a New Epidural Simulator by the CompuFloAnesthesiology research and practice · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jj StuntOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ph WulmsDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Materials and Maritime Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Gm KerkhoffsOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J DankelmanDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Materials and Maritime Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Cn van DijkOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gjm TuijthofOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands ; Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Materials and Maritime Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince simulators offer important advantages, they are increasingly used in medical education and medical skills training that require physical actions. A wide variety of simulators have become commercially available. It is of high importance that evidence is provided that training on these simulators can actually improve clinical performance on live patients. Therefore, the aim of this review is to determine the availability of different types of simulators and the evidence of their validation, to offer insight regarding which simulators are suitable to use in the clinical setting as a training modality. SUMMARY: Four hundred and thirty-three commercially available simulators were found, from which 405 (94%) were physical models. One hundred and thirty validation studies evaluated 35 (8%) commercially available medical simulators for levels of validity ranging from face to predictive validity. Solely simulators that are used for surgical skills training were validated for the highest validity level (predictive validity). Twenty-four (37%) simulators that give objective feedback had been validated. Studies that tested more powerful levels of validity (concurrent and predictive validity) were methodologically stronger than studies that tested more elementary levels of validity (face, content, and construct validity).

conclusionNinety-three point five percent of the commercially available simulators are not known to be tested for validity. Although the importance of (a high level of) validation depends on the difficulty level of skills training and possible consequences when skills are insufficient, it is advisable for medical professionals, trainees, medical educators, and companies who manufacture medical simulators to critically judge the available medical simulators for proper validation. This way adequate, safe, and affordable medical psychomotor skills training can be achieved.

Indexed as

medical educationmedical skills trainingtraining modalityvalidation studiesvalidity level

Identifiers

PMID25342926
PMCPMC4205038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.