SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Physical simulation models for veterinary surgical training: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Simulation has become an increasingly important educational strategy in veterinary surgical training. This is driven by ethical considerations, the need to standardize skill acquisition, and limitations associated with training based on live animals and cadavers. However, the characteristics, scope, and validation of simulators used in veterinary surgery remain heterogeneous and insufficiently systematized. This study aimed to systematically review and characterize the simulators used in veterinary surgical education, focusing on their characteristics, applications, and validations. This should also identify current limitations and potential future research directions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies on the use of physical simulators in veterinary surgical training published between July 2016 and July 2026. Studies based solely on cadavers, ex vivo models, virtual reality simulators, and those not focused on veterinary practice, were excluded. The results were synthesized descriptively using predefined categorical frameworks. Results: A total of 1,409 articles were identified, of which 78 studies were ultimately included. Most simulators were low fidelity (55%) and developed in academic settings. High-fidelity simulators were predominantly commercial (79%). The majority of the simulators identified were canine models (42%) or box trainers (21%), with a focus on sterilization procedures. Comparatively limited representation was found for other species and surgical specialties. Validation approaches were heterogeneous, with face, content and construct validity being the most frequently reported. Conclusion: Physical simulators are widely used in veterinary surgical education, but their development remains uneven across species, specialties, and validation standards. There is a clear need for higher-fidelity, species-diverse simulators, as well as more rigorous and standardized validation frameworks to strengthen the educational and clinical impact of simulation-based training.
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.