Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26002043›Full record

ReviewThe patient2016

The Benefits and Risks of Being a Standardized Patient: A Narrative Review of the Literature.

Joseph Plaksin, Joseph Nicholson, Sarita Kundrod, Sondra Zabar, Adina Kalet, Lisa Altshuler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Harnessing lived experience in health professions simulation-based education: a scoping review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Joseph PlaksinProgram on Medical Education Innovation and Research, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, BCD D401, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Joseph NicholsonDepartment of Medical Library, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Sarita KundrodProgram on Medical Education Innovation and Research, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, BCD D401, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Sondra ZabarProgram on Medical Education Innovation and Research, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, BCD D401, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Adina KaletProgram on Medical Education Innovation and Research, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, BCD D401, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Lisa AltshulerProgram on Medical Education Innovation and Research, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, BCD D401, New York, NY, 10016, USA. lisa.altshuler@nyumc.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardized patients (SPs) are a widely used, valid, and reliable means of teaching and evaluating healthcare providers (HCPs) across all levels of training and across multiple domains of both clinical and communication skills. Most research on SP programs focuses on outcomes pertinent to the learners (i.e., HCPs) rather than how this experience affects the SPs themselves. This review seeks to summarize the current literature on the risks and benefits of being an SP. We reviewed the literature on the effects that simulation has on adults, children/adolescents, and medical professionals who serve as SPs, in addition to real patients (RPs) who are involved in teaching by sharing their medical histories and experiences. To collect the literature, we conducted two separate systematic searches: one for SPs and one for RPs. Following the searches, we applied standardized eligibility criteria to narrow the literature down to articles within the scope of this review. A total of 67 studies were included that focused on the outcomes of SPs or RPs. The benefits for those portraying SP roles include improved health knowledge and attitudes, relationships with their HCPs, and changed health behaviors. Negative effects of being an SP include anxiety, exhaustion/fatigue, and physical discomfort immediately following a simulation, but the literature to date appears to indicate that there are no long-lasting effects. These findings are consistent across age groups and the type of role being simulated. They are also supported by studies of RPs who are involved in medical education. Overall, the benefits of being an SP appear to outweigh the known risks. However, there are significant limitations in the current literature, and additional studies are needed to better characterize the SP experience.

Indexed as

Patient SimulationClinical CompetenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansProfessional-Patient Relations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.