ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2014
How valid are commercially available medical simulators?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effects of the use of clinical simulators on the development of practical skills in higher education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Findings Favor Haptics Feedback in Virtual Simulation Surgical Education: An Updated Systematic and Scoping Review.Surgical innovation · 2024Article
- [Simulators and other tools in orthopedic-trauma surgery training].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Validity evidence of a task trainer for normal and difficult lumbar puncture: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Development and evaluation of a high-fidelity lactation simulation model for health professional breastfeeding education.International breastfeeding journal · 2020Article
- Virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrates sufficient face validity.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019Article
- Article
- Evaluating the use of high-fidelity simulators during mock neonatal resuscitation scenarios in trying to improve confidence in residents.SAGE open medicine · 2018Article
- Objective Evaluation of a New Epidural Simulator by the CompuFloAnesthesiology research and practice · 2018Article
- Achieving Interface and Environment Fidelity in the Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Trainer.International journal of human-computer studies · 2016Article
- The ultrasound use of simulators, current view, and perspectives: Requirements and technical aspects (WFUMB state of the art paper).Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.