SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Evaluating the impact of simulation on patient outcomes in pediatric and neonatal critical care: a systematic review and critical appraisal of the evidence.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the literature widely supports a positive relationship between simulation-based education (SBE) and learning outcomes, its impact on patient outcomes remains less clearly understood. Our aim was to comprehensively survey the landscape of simulation-based research (SBR) that evaluates patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 4) in the context of pediatric and neonatal critical care. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ERIC was conducted through December 2024. We included RCTs, non-RCTs, and before-after studies focusing on Kirkpatrick Level 4 outcomes. Quality was appraised using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A total of 2481 articles were screened. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were prospective (63%) and single-center (69%), with only three RCTs (19%). All included studies (100%) reported Level 4 outcomes; however, a critical distinction emerged between system-level and patient-level results. While 75% (12/16) of studies reported positive impacts on Level 4a (system processes), such as protocol adherence or response times, only 50% (8/16) demonstrated significant improvements in Level 4b (direct patient outcomes), such as mortality or complication rates. In addition, all included studies were judged to have a high or critical risk of bias.
conclusionsAlthough SBE effectively optimizes clinical processes (Level 4a), a significant evidence gap remains regarding its direct impact on patient health (Level 4b). Current SBR often lacks the methodological rigor-specifically the use of randomized designs-needed to isolate SBE as the primary driver of clinical improvement. Future research must prioritize high-quality, multicenter trials targeting patient-oriented metrics to bridge this translational gap. WHAT IS KNOWN: • SBE has been extensively developed in pediatric and neonatal critical care settings; however, its impact on healthcare professional training and on patient outcomes remains less well understood. WHAT IS NEW: • There is a scarcity of rigorous Level 4 evidence linking SBE to patient outcomes in pediatric and neonatal critical care. • We provide a methodological roadmap advocating for mixed-methods and multicenter designs to bridge this clinical evidence gap.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42035388What 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.