ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
In-house designed simulation courses versus society-accredited designs by international societies: A comparative analysis.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Simulation-based medical education is increasingly important in postgraduate training, yet the comparative merits of in-house vs. society-accredited courses are still not well understood. This study examined these two approaches in three emergency medicine domains - prehospital, pediatric, and adult - to identify their respective strengths and potential limitations. Methods: In a retrospective analysis, 1,263 participants from 57 sessions (2019-2023) evaluated six emergency medicine courses (three society-accredited, three in-house). A 25-item Likert-scale survey assessed aspects of course content, delivery, organization, and overall recommendation, alongside demographic questions and free-text comments. Mann-Whitney U tests and Cliff's Delta were used for statistical comparisons. Results: Society-accredited courses generally scored higher on guideline adherence, presenter competence, and practical relevance, whereas in-house formats excelled in areas like content scope and communication. Participant specialty, workplace, and training stage influenced ratings. Free-text feedback praised hands-on learning and small-group design but called for earlier material distribution, better logistics, and clearer guidelines. Conclusions: Both in-house and society-accredited SBME courses exhibit distinct strengths. Adopting best practices from both models, may guide a hybrid approach that optimizes SBME outcomes. However, reliance on self-reported data and a lack of controls for instructor competence or teaching style limit generalizability. Future research should include a broader sample, more rigorous content analysis, longitudinal follow-up, and detailed participant experience data to enhance the depth and applicability of findings.
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.