ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Numerical Assessment Tool to Measure Realism in Clinical Simulation.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. 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.
- Assessment of simulated participant professional performance in health professional education: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
- Quality indicators for the management of clinical simulation centers and laboratories: a scoping review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Effects of the use of clinical simulators on the development of practical skills in higher education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a 3D printed training model with realistic spatial-anatomical conditions for head and neck microsurgery.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Realism is indispensable in clinical simulation learning, and the objective of this work is to present to the scientific community the methodology behind a novel numerical and digital tool to objectively measure realism in clinical simulation. Indicators measuring accuracy and naturality constitute ProRealSim v.1.0 (Universidad Europea, Madrid, Spain) which allows the assessing of attained realism for three dimensions: simulated participant, scenography, and simulator. Twelve experts in simulation-based learning (SBL) analyzed the conceptual relevance of 73 initial qualitative indicators that were then reduced to 53 final indicators after a screening study evaluating eight medical clinical simulation scenarios. Inter- and intra-observer concordance, correlation, and internal consistency were calculated, and an exploratory factorial analysis was conducted. Realism units were weighted based on variability and its mathematical contribution to global and dimensional realism. A statistical significance of
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.