SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Validation status of definitive airway management simulators: a systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDefinitive airway management simulators are widely used for training and evaluating airway management techniques. However, the extent and quality of their validation remain unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify and evaluate studies assessing the validity of airway simulators used in anaesthesia and airway training.
methodsA comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to September 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated at least one domain of simulator validity. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and each simulator was assigned a Level of Recommendation. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251108102).
resultsFrom 939 studies screened, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria, and 29 different simulators were included. Validation domains varied widely, with most studies assessing only one or two domains. Predictive validity, linking simulator performance to clinical outcomes, was rarely evaluated. High-fidelity simulators, such as ORSIM® and SimMan®, demonstrated the most comprehensive validation across multiple domains. Validation quality did not consistently correlate with simulator fidelity, and several low-fidelity models demonstrated short-term skill transfer comparable with more complex systems.
conclusionsDefinitive airway simulators are commonly used for training and device evaluation yet are rarely subjected to robust validation. These findings highlight the urgent need for a unified validation framework and higher-quality research to ensure simulators used in airway management accurately reflect clinical realities. This has critical implications for educators, training bodies, and institutions relying on simulators for competency development and device assessment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD420251108102).
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.