Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

From: Educational efficacy of high-fidelity simulation in neonatal resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Design Population/Sample Size Comparison Outcome measures Results
Hossino et al., 2018, USA [19] Single arm pre-post study Residents/n = 26 Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test Confidence survey Improved confidence in all evaluated aspects of the survey after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.01
Malmstrom et al., 2017, Sweden [20] Single arm pre-post study physicians, nurses and midwives/n = 92 Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test Participants’ self-assessed questionnaire: communication, leadership, confidence and technical skills Improved participants’ self-assessed ability to communication, leadership, confidence and technical skills, p < 0.001
Surcouf et al., 2013, USA [11] Single arm pre-post study Residents/n = 32 Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test Knowledge, skill and teamwork performance; Confidence survey Improved performance and confidence after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.05
Finan et al., 2012, Canada [21] Single arm pre-post study First-year pediatric residents/n = 13 Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test Skill performance assessed by Neonatal intubation checklist and Global rating scale Improved skill performance scores after high-fidelity intervention in simulations test (p < 0.05) rather than real-life test
Sawyer et al., 2011, USA [22] Single arm pre-post study Pediatric and Family Medicine residents/n = 30 (15 teams) Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test NRP performance scores and times Improved overall NRP performance scores and positive-pressure ventilation after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.05
Wang et al., 2017, China [23] RCT Medical students/n = 180 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 90) vs. traditional training group (n = 90) Knowledge test; Skill performance test; Satisfaction survey Improved knowledge scores and skill performance in high-fidelity group, p < 0.001; Improved satisfactory in learning theoretical knowledge, learning interest, learning initiative and positivity, and practical ability
Curran et al., 2015, Canada [14] RCT Third year medical students/n = 66 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 31) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 35) Integrated skills performance; Teamwork behaviors; Participant satisfaction scores; Confidence survey No difference in skill performance (p = 0.45) and teamwork behavior (p = 0.144); Improved satisfaction scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01; Improved confidence in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01
Nimbalkar et al., 2015, India [10] RCT Undergraduate students/n = 101 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 50) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 51) Neonatal resuscitation knowledge by written test; Skills performance by Megacode; Long-term outcomes (3 months) Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; No difference in skill performance, p = 0.13
Chen et al., 2015, China [24] RCT Medical students/n = 40 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 20) vs. traditional training group (n = 20) Knowledge test; Skills performance test; Satisfaction survey Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01; Improved satisfactory in learning interest, learning initiative and positivity, practical ability, Teamwork awareness, critical thinking, and clinical thinking
Rubio-Gurung et al., 2014, France [25] RCT Level 1 and Level 2 maternities/n = 12 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 6) vs. No intervention group (n = 6) Technical scores (TS); Team performance scores (TPS) Improved in median TS and TPS in the Intervention group than in the Control group after the training sessions, p < 0.05
Cheng et al., 2013, Canada [13] RCT Interprofessional health careteams/n = 90 Non-scripted debriefing, low-fidelity simulator (n = 23) vs. scripted debriefing, low-fidelity simulator (n = 22) vs. non-scripted debriefing, high-fidelity simulator (n = 23) vs. scripted debriefing, high-fidelity simulator (n = 22) Medical knowledge by multiple choice question (MCQ) test; Team clinical management by Clinical Performance Tool (CPT); Team leader’s behavioral performance by Behavioral Assessment Tool (BAT) No difference in MCQ (p = 0.67), BAT (p = 0.72), and CPT (p = 0.1) between high-fidelity group and low-fidelity group after debriefing
Campbell et al., 2009, Canada [26] RCT First-year family medicine residents/n = 15 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 8) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 7) Experience rating for Knowledge test; Megacode for performance Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; Improved skill performance in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05
Lee et al., 2012, USA [27] RCT 2nd-4th year emergency medicine residents/n = 27 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 12) vs. traditional training group (n = 15) Knowledge, skill performance; Confidence survey Improved knowledge, skill and confidence scores from baseline to final assessment in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05
Finan et al., 2012, Canada [28] RCT Neonatal trainees/n = 16 High-fidelity simulator group (n = 8) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 8) NRP performance scores; Non-technical team performance No difference between high-fidelity group and low-fidelity group in NRP performance scores (p = 0.17) or non-technical skills performance between groups (p = 0.52)
Thomas et al., 2010, USA [12] RCT Residents/n = 34 High-fidelity simulator + team training group (n = 10) vs. Low-fidelity simulator + team training group (n = 9) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 15) Teamwork outcomes; Performance score and resuscitation duration Improved teamwork event behaviors in high-fidelity groups (p = 0.004); No difference between high-fidelity team training and low-fidelity team training group in NRP performance (p = 0.999) or resuscitation duration (p = 0.452)