CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 481Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cheng, Adam, Eppich, Walter, Grant, Vincent, Sherbino, Jonathan, Zendejas, Benjamin, Cook, David A·2014·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.12432
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: Debriefing is a common feature of technology‐enhanced simulation ( TES ) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, and evaluate the effectiveness of debriefing when combined with TES . Methods: We systematically searched databases, including MEDLINE , EMBASE and Scopus, and reviewed previous bibliographies for original comparative studies investigating the use of TES with debriefing in training health care providers. Reviewers, in duplicate, evaluated study quality and abstracted information on instructional design, debriefing and outcomes. Effect sizes ( ES ) were pooled using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Results: From 10 903 potentially eligible studies, we identified 177 studies (11 511 learners) that employed debriefing as part of TES . Key characteristics of debriefing (e.g. duration, educator presence and characteristics, content, structure/method, timing, use of video) were usually incompletely reported. A meta‐analysis of four studies demonstrated that video‐assisted debriefing has negligible and non‐significant effects for time skills ( ES = 0.10) compared with non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Meta‐analysis demonstrated non‐significant effects in favour of expert modelling with short debriefing in comparison with long debriefing (ES range = 0.21–0.74). Among studies comparing terminal with concurrent debriefing, results were variable depending on outcome measures and the context of training (e.g. medical resuscitation versus technical skills). Eight additional studies revealed insight into the roles of other debriefing‐related factors (e.g. multimedia debriefing, learner‐led debriefing, debriefing duration, content of debriefing). Among studies that compared simulation plus debriefing with no intervention, pooled ES s were favourable for all outcomes (ES range = 0.28–2.16). Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that video‐assisted debriefing yields outcomes similar to those of non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Other debriefing design features show mixed or non‐significant results. As debriefing characteristics are usually incompletely reported, future debriefing research should describe all the key debriefing characteristics along with their associated descriptors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12432

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–479 of 479

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, A., Eppich, W., Grant, V., Sherbino, J., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Adam
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-09
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
657-666
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/medu.12432
OpenAlex
W1986133144
Cited by
481
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 5
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
debriefing, simulation-based medical education, video-assisted debriefing
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Education, Medical, Education, Professional, Health Personnel, Humans, Teaching, Time Factors, Video Recording, Databases, Bibliographic, Problem-Based Learning

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