Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978416›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2023

Distance simulation in the health professions: a scoping review.

Rachel Elkin, Jonathan P Duff, Marian L LaForest, Stephanie Stapleton, Geethanjali Ramachandra, Janice C Palaganas, Isabel T Gross

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Hands-on Distance Simulation of Technical Skills: A Systematic Review.Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Rachel ElkinDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. re2357@cumc.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2864-3203
Jonathan P DuffDivision of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Marian L LaForestAugustus Long Health Sciences Library, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Stephanie StapletonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Geethanjali RamachandraDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Krishna Institute of Medical Science, Secunderabad, India.
Janice C PalaganasDepartment of Health Professions Education, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA.
Isabel T GrossSection of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistance simulation is defined as simulation experiences in which participants and/or facilitators are separated from each other by geographic distance and/or time. The use of distance simulation as an education technique expanded rapidly with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, with a concomitant increase in scholarly work.

methodsA scoping review was performed to review and characterize the distance simulation literature. With the assistance of an informationist, the literature was systematically searched. Each abstract was reviewed by two researchers and disagreements were addressed by consensus. Risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.

resultsSix thousand nine hundred sixty-nine abstracts were screened, ultimately leading to 124 papers in the final dataset for extraction. A variety of simulation modalities, contexts, and distance simulation technologies were identified, with activities covering a range of content areas. Only 72 papers presented outcomes and sufficient detail to be analyzed for risk of bias. Most studies had moderate to high risk of bias, most commonly related to confounding factors, intervention classification, or measurement of outcomes.

conclusionsMost of the papers reviewed during the more than 20-year time period captured in this study presented early work or low-level outcomes. More standardization around reporting is needed to facilitate a clear and shared understanding of future distance simulation research. As the broader simulation community gains more experience with distance simulation, more studies are needed to inform when and how it should be used.

Indexed as

Distance simulationRisk of biasScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37978416
PMCPMC10656877

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.