ReviewBMC medical education2026
Screen-based simulation assessment for emergency medicine learners: a rapid review.
Review in BMC medical education, 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
backgroundSimulation has played a vital role in training medical professionals. The COVID-19 Pandemic has highlighted the need for physically distant educational assessment methods. Screen-based simulation (SBS) demonstrates one alternative to traditional in-person simulation methods to assess learners clinical reasoning and communication skills. This study aims to compare in-person simulation to SBS as assessment methods in Emergency Medicine (EM).
methodsA rapid review literature search methodology of an electronic database (PubMed) was performed in February 2022 with search terms such as "Computer Simulation," "Patient Simulation," "Simulation Training," "Education, Distance," "Virtual OSCE," "Academic Performance," or "Emergency Medicine." Reference lists of relevant articles were manually analyzed for additional studies. Studies were manually reviewed by multiple authors following strict inclusion/exclusion criteria.
results751 articles were identified based on title and abstract. Sixty articles were selected for retrieval, of which seven pilot and small population studies were included. Study participants varied based on experience level. Three key findings were derived from these studies. First, SBS is comparable to in-person simulation as a clinical competence and communication skill assessment method when evaluated by independent raters and mock EM oral board examination scores. Second, SBS is capable of discerning EM learners by educational level given SBS/serious game mean clinical score clustering. Lastly, various SBS software demonstrated strong participant interest across the EM learner spectrum through subjective exit questionaries.
conclusionCurrent research regarding SBS as an assessment method for EM learners is severely limited as demonstrated by low number of included studies and small populations. Even so, SBS shows promise as a possible alternative and/or supplement to traditional in-person simulation to assess clinical reasoning/communication skills and discern learners by educational level. Further large-scale studies are required to establish the validity of SBS as an assessment method.
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.