SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
Effects of High-Fidelity Simulation Training on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction for Practising Registered Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundAmple evidence has shown the benefit of high-fidelity simulation (HFS) in promoting learning in pre-licensure nursing students, but the evidence for practising registered nurses has not been synthesised.
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of HFS training on learning outcomes and satisfaction in practising registered nurses.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for studies published in English or Chinese from database inception to 31 May 2023 (updated on 20 April 2025). All randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-experiments that compared HFS training with traditional methods (e.g., lecture) for practising registered nurses and reported learning outcomes and satisfaction were included. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and non-randomised trials (ROBINS-I). Inverse-variance random-effect models were used to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline.
resultsOf 1404 records, eight eligible studies (five RCTs and three quasi-experiments) involving 275 practising nurses were identified. Two RCTs had high risk of bias, while others showed some concerns or moderate risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed that HFS could promote knowledge acquisition (SMD = 0.65, 95% CI, [0.35, 0.95], p < 0.01, I
conclusionCompared with traditional training methods, HFS is effective in promoting knowledge acquisition, professional skills and learning satisfaction and may enhance self-confidence among practising nurses. To strengthen the evidence base, more rigorous RCTs with larger sample sizes, adequate reporting of HFS design, and standardised outcome measures are warranted. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022358717). No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.