Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35071647›Full record

ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2021

The feasibility of simulation-based high-stakes assessment in emergency medicine settings: A scoping review.

Loui K Alsulimani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Loui K AlsulimaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Abulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using simulation in high-stakes assessments has been evolving as a method to improve the assessment process. There is a concurrent need to address challenges and establish best practices to ensure the best quality when implementing high-stakes evaluations. The aim of this study is to provide an insight for stakeholders about using multiple modalities of simulation in high-stakes evaluations by presenting challenges, best practices, and future directions described in the relevant literature. A scoping review of original studies (from the year 1994-2021) including the use of common modalities (standardized patients, high-fidelity mannequins, part-task trainers, virtual simulation, and hybrid simulation) was conducted. The search covered the common databases: PubMed, Education Resource Information Center, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane library. Initial screening in the databases resulted in 111,253 articles. After the application of a refining search strategy, 47 articles were included for comprehensive evaluation. Most articles were about credentialing/licensure purposes of assessment. Many articles were specialty-specific, especially focusing on anesthesia. Most challenges described were related to the validity of the assessment that should be considered in the planning phase. Best practices were mostly related to planning for measures to assure the validity of the assessment tools and process. The use of multimodality simulation for high-stakes assessment is growing despite challenges; this growth is associated with the accumulation of experience shared in literature. This growth will help to improve planning, practices, and goals achievement from such an application.

Indexed as

Competency basededucationeducational assessmentemergency medicineexamination questionpatients simulationreview literature

Identifiers

PMID35071647
PMCPMC8719568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.