Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37593270›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Standardized Patients in Medical Education: A Review of the Literature.

Octavia L Flanagan, Kristina M Cummings

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
18.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Octavia L FlanaganCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM), Elmira, USA.
Kristina M CummingsDepartment of Family Medicine, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM), Elmira, USA.
Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of standardized patients (SPs) was first introduced in the 1960s by Dr. Howard Barrows of the University of Southern California and has been applied in medical school education since that time. This practice has allowed medical students to practice skills on live persons who are teachers rather than on real patients, who may be endangered by their emerging skills. Previous studies supported the use of SPs but did not measure whether they improved clinical competence or students' confidence in their skills. This literature review evaluated whether current medical education literature supports or refutes the use of SPs compared to other modalities such as simulated patients (SiPs) and virtual reality (VR) in the improvement of student confidence, clinical performance, and interpersonal communication skills. The research questions posed for this review were as follows: do medical students in their first two years of education who have practiced skills using SPs have more self-confidence in their ability to perform skills on real patients than those students who did not use SPs, do medical students in their third and fourth years of medical school have higher clinical competency with sensitive patient examinations after using SPs in their first two years of medical education than those students who did not use SPs, and do medical students who have used SPs for discussing sensitive issues have better interpersonal skills when they encounter real patients in the clinical setting than those who have not used SPs? The methodology for this descriptive, systematic review of the literature was organized using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to describe how articles were collected and synthesized to evaluate the variables under study. The results of this study revealed that students learned the most when SPs were used because they were able to teach students the skills that they needed in a safe learning environment. Medical students performing sensitive patient examinations with SPs learned not only how to perform the examinations but also how to improve their communication with patients. Students and residents reported increased confidence and clinical competence when performing new skills with SPs rather than with peer practice, virtual reality, or real patients in a clinical setting. Although the utilization of SPs has been studied in multiple ways and found to be a powerful tool in the education of undergraduate medical students and interns, there is still much study to be done to address the human needs of real patients. Gaps in this literature included small sample sizes, a lack of standardized assessment tools, and the need to include a multidisciplinary approach that addresses cultural awareness and appreciation. The authors found limited studies analyzing the effect the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had on the use of SPs in medical school education. Continued scientific inquiry in post-pandemic medical education is an essential component for dissemination as most schools have reintroduced the use of SPs, which strengthens the concept that their use is superior to the other simulation methods used when SPs were not available.

Indexed as

clinical competencemedical school educationself-efficacysimulated live patientsstandardized patientsstudent confidence

Identifiers

PMID37593270
PMCPMC10431693
OpenAlexW4384500039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.