ArticleBMC medical education2025
Perioperative simulation-based medical education in China: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based medical education (SBME) has rapidly emerged as a new trend in perioperative medical education in China. However, our understanding of the role and impact of SBME on medical education remains limited. This study surveyed medical educators, including administrators, instructors, and learners, to evaluate perioperative SBME by identifying its advantages and disadvantages.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted in 2024, involving administrators, instructors, and learners from medical education institutes across China. The survey included a structured questionnaire focused on perioperative SBME with information regarding participant characteristics, their attitudes, and perceived teaching obstacles. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the current status of perioperative SBME, and logistic regression analysis helped identify factors potentially affecting learners' satisfaction with the program.
resultsA total of 1411 survey respondents, including 274 administrative staff, 285 course instructors, 681 learners, and 250 others, participated in our study. Among administrators, 81.8% believed that SBME was crucial for perioperative medical training, emphasizing its role in enhancing trainees' clinical skills and decision-making abilities. Key challenges identified by administrators and instructors included insufficient training space, simulation models, and faculty. Administrators advocated for increased investment in simulation resources (88.7%) and faculty development (84.3%). Instructors stressed the importance of enhanced faculty training (92.6%), implementing standardized training protocols (69.1%), and increasing the proportion of simulation-based teaching (68.1%). Learners recommended optimizing teaching schedules (65.9%) and improving simulation methods (64.2%). Notably, SBME implementation varied across different regions in China, especially in tertiary hospitals, where medical institutes in Southern and Eastern China run more SBME programs.
conclusionsPerioperative SBME development has progressed in China, but faces imbalances across different institutions. Furthermore, the availability of qualified instructors, equipment, and financial investment still need to be addressed. This study provides a foundation for the continued advancement of SBME. However, as participation was voluntary and response rates could not be calculated, results may not be fully generalizable. These findings nonetheless provide an evidence base for national strategies to standardize and expand simulation-based perioperative education in China.
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.