ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the use of low-cost simulation in nursing education: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of an AI-enhanced BOPPPS teaching model in nursing courses: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Low-cost home-based basic life support skills training using a homemade manikin among undergraduate nursing students.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Progress in educational theory and translational implementation of simulation-based education for healthcare professionals: an integrative analysis from theory to effectiveness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis scoping review aims to assess low-cost simulation methods used in nursing education, evaluating how they balance educational effectiveness with budget constraints.
designScoping review conducted in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL were systematically searched for relevant studies published between January 2000 and October 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included peer-reviewed primary studies involving nurses or nursing students, focused on the use of low-cost simulation in any healthcare setting. Studies had to describe the simulation strategy and its educational application. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts and extracted data using a standardised form. Findings were synthesised narratively and categorised by type of simulation, educational context and competencies addressed.
resultsOut of 3332 records, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. The reviewed studies covered various clinical areas, including critical care, emergency, neonatal, paediatric and obstetric nursing, as well as transversal competencies such as communication and clinical reasoning. Low-cost methods included task trainers, mannequins, computer-based tools, hybrid models and serious games. Only 38% of studies reported detailed cost information.
conclusionsLow-cost simulation offers promising opportunities in nursing education but suffers from inconsistent cost reporting and a lack of standardisation. Further research is needed to evaluate its long-term effectiveness and support broader implementation.
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.