Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,201

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Utility of Simulation in Medical Education: What Is the Evidence?

Okuda, Yasuharu, Bryson, Ethan O., DeMaria, Samuel, Jacobson, Lisa, Quinones, Joshua, Shen, Bing, Levine, Adam I.·2009·Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine
DOI 10.1002/msj.20127
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Medical schools and residencies are currently facing a shift in their teaching paradigm. The increasing amount of medical information and research makes it difficult for medical education to stay current in its curriculum. As patients become increasingly concerned that students and residents are “practicing” on them, clinical medicine is becoming focused more on patient safety and quality than on bedside teaching and education. Educators have faced these challenges by restructuring curricula, developing small‐group sessions, and increasing self‐directed learning and independent research. Nevertheless, a disconnect still exists between the classroom and the clinical environment. Many students feel that they are inadequately trained in history taking, physical examination, diagnosis, and management. Medical simulation has been proposed as a technique to bridge this educational gap. This article reviews the evidence for the utility of simulation in medical education. We conducted a MEDLINE search of original articles and review articles related to simulation in education with key words such as simulation, mannequin simulator, partial task simulator, graduate medical education, undergraduate medical education, and continuing medical education. Articles, related to undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education were used in the review. One hundred thirteen articles were included in this review. Simulation‐based training was demonstrated to lead to clinical improvement in 2 areas of simulation research. Residents trained on laparoscopic surgery simulators showed improvement in procedural performance in the operating room. The other study showed that residents trained on simulators were more likely to adhere to the advanced cardiac life support protocol than those who received standard training for cardiac arrest patients. In other areas of medical training, simulation has been demonstrated to lead to improvements in medical knowledge, comfort in procedures, and improvements in performance during retesting in simulated scenarios. Simulation has also been shown to be a reliable tool for assessing learners and for teaching topics such as teamwork and communication. Only a few studies have shown direct improvements in clinical outcomes from the use of simulation for training. Multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of simulation in the teaching of basic science and clinical knowledge, procedural skills, teamwork, and communication as well as assessment at the undergraduate and graduate medical education levels. As simulation becomes increasingly prevalent in medical school and resident education, more studies are needed to see if simulation training improves patient outcomes. Mt Sinai J Med 76:330–343, 2009. © 2008 Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/msj.20127

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,201

Metadata

Authors
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I.
Venue
Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-29
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
330-343
ISSN
  • 0027-2507 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-7581
DOI
10.1002/msj.20127
OpenAlex
W2124355949
Cited by
1,201
References
93
FWCI
20.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.