SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Peer tutoring in clinical simulation for health sciences education: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-Based Education and peer tutoring have become relevant pedagogical strategies in health sciences education, as they promote active, safe, and collaborative learning. However, studies demonstrating their combined benefits have not yet been sufficiently systematized. This systematic review analyzes the evidence on the implementation of peer tutoring and simulation-based teaching for the development of technical and non-technical skills among health sciences students, based on experimental and quasi-experimental interventions.
methodsA search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases, including experimental and quasi-experimental studies published between 2020 and 2025. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total sample of 860 students and 107 peer tutors.
resultsThe results show that most interventions were implemented in low- to medium-complexity simulation settings and primarily reached Level 2 of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model, assessing knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Peer tutoring demonstrated significant benefits in technical skills (e.g., specific clinical procedures) and in non-technical skills such as self-confidence, self-efficacy, communication, motivation, and reflection. Additionally, high levels of student satisfaction, reduced anxiety, and the creation of psychologically safe learning environments were reported. The role of the peer tutor is characterized by cognitive and social proximity to students, acting as a learning facilitator, provider of feedback, and promoter of a climate of trust. However, the studies also revealed methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, non-randomized designs, and the absence of longitudinal follow-up.
conclusionsIn conclusion, the combination of Simulation-Based Education and peer tutoring represents a cost-effective and pedagogically sound strategy for health professions education. Future research should incorporate more rigorous designs, larger samples, and long-term evaluations, as well as formal training programs for peer tutors under faculty supervision.
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.