SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Is the use of standardized patients more effective than role-playing in medical education? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Voice-Enabled Virtual Patients for Interactive Training in Standardized Clinical Assessment: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- What Platform Scores Miss: Multidimensional Evaluation of AI Teaching Agents in Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Is simulation always a safe learning environment? Anxiety and social anxiety symptoms in first-year medical students during simulated patient encounters.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The experiences and impact of nursing student acting as standardized patient: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of using Standardized patients (SPs) and Role-playing (RP) in medical education. It is crucial to understand the differences in the effects of SPs and RP. However, the existing measurement results are varied, and the findings lack robustness. Methods: We collected the results of various experiments and conducted a meta-analysis. In total, 10 articles and 27 effect sizes were included in the analysis, involving 721 students. Results: The meta-analysis results showed that compared to the RP method, using SPs significantly improved students' self-confidence (effect size = 0.415). However, in other aspects, the two methods showed similar outcomes. We observed that the effectiveness of SPs teaching methods increased over time. Conclusion: SPs effectively enhance students' self-confidence by simulating diverse roles, situations, and real-world work scenarios. This study provides a comprehensive comparative perspective on RP and SPs.
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.