ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
A comparative study of traditional high-fidelity (manikin-based) simulation and virtual high-fidelity simulations concerning their effectiveness and perception.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of highand medium-fidelity simulation in nursing education: randomized controlled trial.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Virtual case reasoning and AI-assisted diagnostic instruction: an empirical study based on body interact and large language models.BMC medical education · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical simulation has become an integral part of medical student education. There is a limited body of literature comparing virtual and high-fidelity simulation in terms of effectiveness and student perception. Methods: A total of 130 medical students at the University of Rzeszów participated in this cross-sectional study. The respondents were divided into two groups: students who completed a selected scenario using a virtual patient (Body Interact) and students who completed a scenario using traditional high-fidelity (manikin-based) simulation (HFS). After completing the scenario, students filled in the following questionnaires: the Simulation Design Scale (SDS), the Educational Practices Questionnaire (EPQ), the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale (SSCL) and a customized survey questionnaire. Results: The study found no significant difference in the effectiveness of HFS between students exposed to either type of simulation. Detailed analysis within specific categories - problem-solving, teamwork, and active learning - also showed no significant differences between virtual and traditional HFS. Furthermore, there were no notable differences between virtual and traditional simulations regarding specific aspects such as satisfaction with learning, self-confidence in learning, and expectations. However, within the virtual simulation group, females rated active learning significantly higher. Students aged 24-33 rated satisfaction with learning, self-confidence, overall effectiveness and perception of HFS, problem-solving, and active learning more favorably. Additionally, the levels of perceived effectiveness and satisfaction of higher years students with HFS increased. Conclusion: Virtual patient simulation and traditional HFS foster the development of practical skills, as well as soft skills of medical students in challenging situations.
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.