Suppr超能文献

医学模拟在医学生重症医学教学中的有效性:一项系统评价与荟萃分析

The Effectiveness of Medical Simulation in Teaching Medical Students Critical Care Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Beal Matthew David, Kinnear John, Anderson Caroline Rachael, Martin Thomas David, Wamboldt Rachel, Hooper Lee

机构信息

From the Norwich Medical School (M.D.B., C.R.A., T.D.M., R.W., L.H.), University of East Anglia, Norwich; and Postgraduate Medical Institute (J.K.), Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.

出版信息

Simul Healthc. 2017 Apr;12(2):104-116. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000189.

Abstract

We aimed to assess effectiveness of simulation for teaching medical students critical care medicine and to assess which simulation methods were most useful. We searched AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Education Resources Information Centre, British Education Index, Australian Education Index, and bibliographies and citations, in July 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing effectiveness of simulation with another educational intervention, or no teaching, for teaching medical students critical care medicine were included. Assessments for inclusion, quality, and data extraction were duplicated and results were synthesized using meta-analysis.We included 22 randomized control trials (n = 1325). Fifteen studies comparing simulation with other teaching found simulation to be more effective [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.43 to 1.24; P < 0.001; I = 89%]. High-fidelity simulation was more effective than low-fidelity simulation, and subgrouping supported high-fidelity simulation being more effective than other methods. Simulation improved skill acquisition (SMD = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.53) but was no better than other teaching in knowledge acquisition (SMD = 0.41; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.91).

摘要

我们旨在评估模拟教学对医学生重症医学教学的有效性,并评估哪种模拟方法最有用。2013年7月,我们检索了医学教育数据库(AMED)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、教育资源信息中心、英国教育索引、澳大利亚教育索引以及参考文献和引文。纳入了比较模拟教学与另一种教育干预或无教学对医学生重症医学教学有效性的随机对照试验。纳入评估、质量评估和数据提取均进行了重复,并使用荟萃分析对结果进行了综合。我们纳入了22项随机对照试验(n = 1325)。15项比较模拟教学与其他教学方法的研究发现模拟教学更有效[标准化均数差(SMD)= 0.84;95%置信区间(CI)= 0.43至1.24;P < 0.001;I² = 89%]。高保真模拟比低保真模拟更有效,亚组分析支持高保真模拟比其他方法更有效。模拟教学提高了技能获取(SMD = 1.01;95% CI = 0.49至1.53),但在知识获取方面并不比其他教学方法更好(SMD = 0.41;95% CI = -0.09至0.91)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验