Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936085›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2023

Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis 1991-2021.

Amy F Hildreth, Lauren A Maggio, Alex Iteen, Amanda L Wojahn, David A Cook, Alexis Battista

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Self-efficacy in mass casualty incident training using mixed reality.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Midline Catheters: A Novel Curriculum for Emergency Medicine Residents.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Amy F HildrethWalter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-6182
Lauren A MaggioUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda Maryland USA.
Alex IteenUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda Maryland USA.
Amanda L WojahnUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda Maryland USA.
David A CookOffice of Applied Scholarship and Education Science Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science Rochester Minnesota USA.
Alexis BattistaUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda Maryland USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Over the past decade, the use of technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine (EM) education has grown, yet we still lack a clear understanding of its effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation in EM. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify EM simulation research that compares technology-enhanced simulation with other instructional modalities. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion and abstracted information on learners, clinical topics, instructional design features, outcomes, cost, and study quality. Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were pooled using random effects. Results: We identified 60 studies, enrolling at least 5279 learners. Of these, 23 compared technology-enhanced simulation with another instructional modality (e.g., living humans, lecture, small group), and 37 compared two forms of technology-enhanced simulation. Compared to lecture or small groups, we found simulation to have nonsignificant differences for time skills (SMD 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to 0.89, Conclusions: Technology-enhanced simulation is effective for EM learners for skills acquisition. Features such as computer-assisted guidance, repetition, and active learning are associated with greater effectiveness.

Identifiers

PMID36936085
PMCPMC10014971

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.