Observational studySultan Qaboos University medical journal2020
Outcome of Undergraduate Medical Education using Medical Simulation according to Students' Feedback.
Observational study in Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Emergency Medical Care students on high-fidelity manikins versus standardised patients: Insights from a pilot mixed-methods study.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- Learning effectiveness of simulation based teaching in Gynaecology and Obstetrics among medical students: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Hybridizing video-based learning with simulation for flipping the clinical skills learning at a university hospital in Pakistan.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- An Alternative to Traditional Bedside Teaching During COVID-19: High-Fidelity Simulation-Based Study.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine students' overall satisfaction with clinical simulation sessions and compare the satisfaction levels of obstetrics/gynaecology (OBGYN) students (group one) and internal medicine students (group two).
methodsThis study was conducted from January to June 2019 at the Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain. Students from year five were included and offered sessions that used simulations to support clinical skill development. Data were collected using a five-point Likert scale (i.e. strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) via feedback forms.
resultsA total of 150 students were included in this study (response rate: 99.07%). In groups of seven, the students attended five cycles of simulations with two sessions per cycle in each specialty over six months. The mean percentage of responses of "strongly agree" and "agree" was 97.8 ± 2.3% in group one and 95.7 ± 2.7% in group two. The satisfaction scores of group one were higher than those from group two for all statements. Significant differences were found between groups one and two in their responses to the statement of whether the simulation session was relevant to clinical practice (100% versus 92.9%;
conclusionStudents indicated high satisfaction after attending the simulation sessions; however, OBGYN students were more satisfied compared to those studying internal medicine.
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.