SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Instruments to evaluate non-technical skills during high fidelity simulation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06446427 (The Effect of Acute High Altitude Exposure on Rescuer Performance and Patient Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
The Effect of Acute High Altitude Exposure on Rescuer Performance and Patient Care
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of non-technical skills training for healthcare professionals in emergency departments: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Non-technical skills in acute care: an umbrella review of assessment, training, and implications for emergency department practice.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying Research Priorities in Digital Education for Health Care: Umbrella Review and Modified Delphi Method Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) into European Spanish: a multi-perspective study including peer-assessment.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- High Fidelity Simulations to Improve Pediatric Airway Management: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Soft skills during residency in Spain: an analysis of the specialized training programmes.BMC medical education · 2026Observational
- High-fidelity simulation programs in ICU-related ethical non-technical skills training: A narrative review.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026Review
- Influence of sociodemographic factors on expert-rated non-technical skills in trauma team simulations.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Assessment methods in graduate medical education in critical care: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Progress in educational theory and translational implementation of simulation-based education for healthcare professionals: an integrative analysis from theory to effectiveness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating non-technical skills into undergraduate medical simulation: a scoping review and thematic analysis of current practices.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
- A comparative study of traditional high-fidelity (manikin-based) simulation and virtual high-fidelity simulations concerning their effectiveness and perception.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Use of in situ simulation to improve team performance and utilization of a rapid sequence intubation checklist.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- TEAMs go VR-validating the TEAM in a virtual reality (VR) medical team training.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- Can Different Admissions to Medical School Predict Performance of Non-Technical Skill Performance in Simulated Clinical Settings?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: High Fidelity Simulations (HFS) are increasingly used to develop Non-Technical Skills (NTS) in healthcare providers, medical and nursing students. Instruments to measure NTS are needed to evaluate the healthcare providers' (HCPs) performance during HFS. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the domains, items, characteristics and psychometric properties of instruments devised to evaluate the NTS of HCPs during HFS. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ProQuest and PubPsych. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of instruments used to assess NTS during HFS training were included. Pairs of independent reviewers determined the eligibility, extracted and evaluated the data. Risk of bias and appraisal of the methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist, and the quality of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: A total of 3,953 articles were screened. A total of 110 reports were assessed for eligibility and 26 studies were included. Studies were conducted in Europe/United Kingdom ( Conclusion: Among a large variety of published instruments, TEAM can be recommended for use to assess NTS during HFS. Evidence is still limited on essential aspects of validity and reliability of all the other NTS instruments included in this review. Further research is warranted to establish their performance in order to be reliably used for HFS.
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.