SynthesisNursing open2026
The Effectiveness of Simulation-Based Versus Patient-Based Clinical Education in Nursing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Abstract
aimTo compare the effectiveness of simulation-based education (alone or in combination with patient-based clinical teaching) in undergraduate nursing students, when measured using objectively assessed outcomes.
designSystematic review with meta-analyses. REVIEW
methodsComparative studies in undergraduate nurses where outcomes of externally verified exams, proficiencies or competencies for both groups were included. Citation-checking, data-extraction and quality-assessment (using CASP checklists) were by two reviewers independently, and Revman (5.4) was used for meta-analysis, using standardised mean differences (SMD). DATA SOURCES: Ten databases (platforms) were searched from January 2000 to January 2024: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Maternity and Childcare (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Central (Cochrane Library), Scopus, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), ERIC (EBSCO) and Assia (ProQuest).
resultsForty-two studies (5336 participants) were included: 19 randomised controlled trials, two randomised crossover trials, three cohort and 18 case-control studies. Twenty-eight studies compared simulation-based education to clinical teaching, 11 compared simulation-based education plus clinical teaching to clinical teaching only, and three compared more versus less simulation-based education in courses. Comparison 1: 21 studies (n = 2329 participants) could be meta-analysed, giving SMD = 0.96 (95% confidence intervals = 0.63-1.30). Comparison 2: 11 studies (n = 918 participants) gave SMD = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals = 0.49-1.15). All included studies reported as good or better results for simulation education.
conclusionsSimulation-based education, alone or in combination, may be as good as patient-based clinical teaching only to teach care skills to nursing students. Future simulation-based education versus patient-based clinical teaching evaluations should also measure clinical and patient-based outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: More simulation-based education of nursing students may result in fewer patients used for teaching. IMPACT: Increased simulation-based education may enhance undergraduate teaching, as more can be taught patient-based clinical skills in an educational setting without apparently reducing educational performance. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution as this is a systematic review.
trial registrationPROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero): CRD42022363205.
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.