ReviewBMC medical education2025
Medical simulation: an essential tool for training, diagnosis, and treatment in the 21st century.
Review in BMC medical education, 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.
- Application of synthetic patient samples in biochemistry laboratory case-based learning course to improve biosafety.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The impact of interactive digital tools on genetics education: a field study across large and small learning groups.BMC medical education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical simulation is a global trend that improves disease interpretation, diagnostic skills, and clinical abilities, transforming them into skills for the practitioner. Simulator classes should be part of continuing medical education, generating advances that make it necessary for technical development and specialization in complex, complicated, or difficult-to-reproduce scenarios that students may face, based on clinical problems with negative feedback, allowing for learning from mistakes. The objective of the review is to identify the usefulness of simulation in teaching the new medicine.
methodsUsing the PRISMA 2020 declaration, articles published in the last 5 years on simulation teaching in neurology were reviewed. These articles were sourced from databases such as PubMed, Mendeley, Wiley, Web of Science, Cochrane, Latindex, and Google Scholar. In the summary of results, only those studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for analysis.
resultsTwenty-six randomized clinical trials on medical education and training were selected. The analysis showed that simulation improved skill scores to support simulation-based medical diagnosis and treatment.
conclusionSimulation-based education has demonstrated statistical benefits in learning, skill acquisition, feedback, and stress reduction, particularly in the specialties of ophthalmology, emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, neuroanatomy, and neuropathology, providing great relevance to the present review. No study reported beneficial effects or effects on mortality: despite improved surgical skill times among participants, no statistically significant data were found on a reduction in operative complications. Simulation technologies such as artificial intelligence, mixed reality, and robotics are under development, the impact of which on improving the quality of care is still unknown. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.