ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Effectiveness of highand medium-fidelity simulation in nursing education: randomized controlled trial.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto compare the effectiveness of highand medium-fidelity clinical simulation on nursing students' knowledge and clinical skills for pressure injury assessment and treatment.
methodsassessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. Thirty-two nursing students were assigned to an experimental group (n=17) or a control group (n=15). The intervention comprised a theoretical component and a simulation-high fidelity for the experimental group and medium fidelity for the control group. Data were collected with a sociodemographic questionnaire, a theoretical test, a skills checklist, and a Debriefing Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis included the chi-square test, the Mann-Whitney U test, ANOVA, and effect size, at a 5% significance level (α=0.05).
resultsboth groups showed significant improvement in theoretical knowledge (p<0.05). The groups did not differ significantly in skills (p=0.853). The debriefing experience was positive and similar in both groups.
conclusionssimulation improved knowledge and skills, with no differences by simulation fidelity level.
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.