ReviewCureus2025
High-Fidelity Simulators in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-fidelity simulation improves acute pain management competency in final-year medical students.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Innovative Approaches in Theoretical Education of Occupational Therapy in the 21st Century.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Experiences of Medical Students and Evaluators on Utilizing Simulators in Objective Structured Clinical Exam: A Qualitative Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
High-fidelity simulators (HFS) have become integral to undergraduate medical education (UME), offering realistic clinical training and skill development opportunities. Despite their growing use, the comparative effectiveness of HFS versus low-fidelity simulators (LFS) and traditional teaching methods remains unclear. This review evaluates the impact of HFS in UME, focusing on skill acquisition, knowledge retention, student confidence, and cost-effectiveness. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PUBMED, Ovid, and LibSearch for studies from 2000 to 2025 comparing HFS with LFS or traditional teaching methods in UME. Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. HFS significantly improved procedural skills, particularly in high-stakes scenarios such as emergency medicine. They also enhanced student confidence in complex clinical situations. However, evidence on the impact of HFS on knowledge retention was mixed, and LFS were found to offer similar outcomes for basic skills training at a lower cost. HFS play a valuable role in UME, especially for complex skills, but a tiered approach utilizing LFS for basic training may offer cost-effective alternatives. Future research should evaluate the long-term effects of HFS on clinical practice.
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.