Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 433–444 | Cite as

Randomized controlled trials of simulation-based interventions in Emergency Medicine: a methodological review

  • Anthony ChauvinEmail author
  • Jennifer Truchot
  • Aida Bafeta
  • Dominique Pateron
  • Patrick Plaisance
  • Youri Yordanov
CE - Systematic Review


The number of trials assessing Simulation-Based Medical Education (SBME) interventions has rapidly expanded. Many studies show that potential flaws in design, conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can bias their results. We conducted a methodological review of RCTs assessing a SBME in Emergency Medicine (EM) and examined their methodological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for RCT that assessed a simulation intervention in EM, published in 6 general and internal medicine and in the top 10 EM journals. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias, intervention reporting was evaluated based on the “template for intervention description and replication” checklist, and methodological quality was evaluated by the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Reports selection and data extraction was done by 2 independents researchers. From 1394 RCTs screened, 68 trials assessed a SBME intervention. They represent one quarter of our sample. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the most frequent topic (81%). Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were performed correctly in 66 and 49% of trials. Blinding of participants and assessors was performed correctly in 19 and 68%. Risk of attrition bias was low in three-quarters of the studies (n = 51). Risk of selective reporting bias was unclear in nearly all studies. The mean MERQSI score was of 13.4/18.4% of the reports provided a description allowing the intervention replication. Trials assessing simulation represent one quarter of RCTs in EM. Their quality remains unclear, and reproducing the interventions appears challenging due to reporting issues.


Simulation Randomized controlled trials Quality Emergency Medicine Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Reproducibility 



We thank Laura Smales (BioMedEditing, Toronto, ON) for copyediting the manuscript.

Author contributions

Conception and design: AC, JT, PP, DP and YY; acquisition of data, AC and JT; analysis: AC; interpretation of data: AC, JT, PP, DP and YY; drafting the article: AC, AB, JT and YY; critical revision for important intellectual content: DP, AB and PP; final approval of the version to be published: AC, JT, PP, AB, DP and YY.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare no support from any organization other than the funding agency listed above for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.


This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Supplementary material

11739_2017_1770_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD et al (2003) Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med 78(8):783–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook DA (2014) How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta-analysis of outcomes of simulation-based education. Med Educ 48(8):750–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zendejas B, Brydges R, Wang AT et al (2013) Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 28(8):1078–1089CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Society for simulation in Healthcare (2016) About simulation. Accessed 26 Dec 2016
  5. 5.
    Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER et al (2005) Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 27(1):10–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR et al (1999) Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA 282(9):861–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fincher RME, Lewis LA (2002) Simulations used to teach clinical skills. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI (eds) International handbook of research in Medical Education, part one. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haute Autorité de santé. Rapport de mission-Etat de l’art (national et international) en matière de pratiques de simulation dans le domaine de santé (2012). Accessed 22 Mar 2017
  9. 9.
    Wayne DB, Butter J, Siddall VJ et al (2005) Simulation-based training of internal medicine residents in advanced cardiac life support protocols: a randomized trial. Teach Learn Med 17(3):210–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barsuk JH, McGaghie WC, Cohen ER et al (2009) Use of simulation based mastery learning to improve the quality of central venous catheter placement in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Med 4(7):397–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray DJ, Boulet JR, Avidan M et al (2007) Performance of residents and anesthesiologists in a simulation based skill assessment. Anesthesiology 107(5):705–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roter DL, Larson S, Shinitzky H et al (2004) Use of an innovative video feedback technique to enhance communication skills training. Med Educ 38(2):145–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hardoff D, Gefen A, Sagi D et al (2016) Dignity in adolescent health care: a simulation-based training programme. Med Educ 50(5):570–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mashiach R, Mezhybovsky V, Nevler A et al (2014) Three-dimensional imaging improves surgical skill performance in a laparoscopic test model for both experienced and novice laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 28(12):3489–3493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Douglass AM, Elder J, Watson R et al (2017) A Randomized controlled trial on the effect of a double check on the detection of medication errors. Ann Emerg Med S0196–0644(17):30318–30319Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unterman A, Achiron A, Gat I et al (2014) A novel simulation-based training program to improve clinical teaching and mentoring skills. Isr Med Assoc J 16(3):184–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen AG, Kitai E, David SB et al (2014) Standardized patient-based simulation training as a tool to improve the management of chronic disease. Simul Healthc 9(1):40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harnof S, Hadani M, Ziv A et al (2013) Simulation-based interpersonal communication skills training for neurosurgical residents. Isr Med Assoc J 15(9):489–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nelson D, Ziv A, Bandali KS (2013) Republished: going glass to digital: virtual microscopy as a simulation-based revolution in pathology and laboratory science. Postgrad Med J 89(1056):599–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reis S, Sagi D, Eisenberg O et al (2013) The impact of residents’ training in Electronic Medical Record (EMR) use on their competence: report of a pragmatic trial. Patient Educ Couns 93(3):515–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bristol Medical Simulation Centre. Worldwide sim database. Accessed 26 Dec 2016
  22. 22.
    Okuda Y, Bond W, Bonfante G et al (2011) National growth in simulation training within Emergency Medicine Residency Program, 2003–2008. Acad Emerg Med 12:455–460Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R et al (2016) Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul 1(1):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R et al (2011) Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 306(9):978–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nuesch E, Reichenbach S, Trelle S et al (2009) The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 61(12):1633–1641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG et al (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157(6):429–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL et al (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336(7644):601–605CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Psaty BM, Prentice RL (2010) Minimizing bias in randomized trials: the importance of blinding. JAMA 304(7):793–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S et al (2009) The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 339:b3244CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tierney JF, Stewart LA (2005) Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 34(1):79–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A et al (2004) Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 328(7430):22–24CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ioannidis JP (2016) Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med 13(6):e1002049CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I et al (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 7(348):g1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ et al (2007) Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 298(9):1006–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheng A, Lockey A, Bhanji F et al (2015) The use of high-fidelity manikins for advanced life support training—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 93(8):142–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 9.5. Accessed 21 Mar 2017
  39. 39.
    Allan KS, Wong N, Aves T et al (2013) The benefits of a simplified method for CPR training of medical professionals: a randomized controlled study. Resuscitation 84(8):1119–1124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Birkenes TS, Myklebust H, Kramer-Johansen J (2013) New pre-arrival instructions can avoid abdominal hand placement for chest compressions. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22(6):21–47Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Birkenes TS, Myklebust H, Neset A et al (2014) Quality of CPR performed by trained bystanders with optimized pre-arrival instructions. Resuscitation 85(1):124–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Godfred R, Huszti E, Fly D et al (2013) A randomized trial of video self-instruction in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for lay persons. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 10(5):21–36Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hafner JW, Jou AC, Wang H et al (2015) Death before disco: the effectiveness of a musical metronome in layperson cardiopulmonary resuscitation training. J Emerg Med 48(1):43–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hong CK, Park SO, Jeong HH et al (2014) The most effective rescuer’s position for cardiopulmonary resuscitation provided to patients on beds: a randomized, controlled, crossover mannequin study. J Emerg Med 46(5):643–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hunt EA, Heine M, Shilkofski NS et al (2015) Exploration of the impact of a voice activated decision support system (VADSS) with video on resuscitation performance by lay rescuers during simulated cardiopulmonary arrest. Emerg Med J 32(3):189–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Iserbyt P, Byra M (2013) The design of instructional tools affects secondary school students’ learning of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in reciprocal peer learning: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 84(11):1591–1595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Iserbyt P, Charlier N, Mols L (2014) Learning basic life support (BLS) with tablet PCs in reciprocal learning at school: are videos superior to pictures? A randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 85(6):809–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Iserbyt P, Mols L, Charlier N et al (2014) Reciprocal learning with task cards for teaching Basic Life Support (BLS): investigating effectiveness and the effect of instructor expertise on learning outcomes. A randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Med 46(1):85–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jones CM, Thorne CJ, Colter PS et al (2013) Rescuers may vary their side of approach to a casualty without impact on cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance. Emerg Med J 30(1):74–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kovic I, Lulic D, Lulic I (2013) CPR PRO(R) device reduces rescuer fatigue during continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized crossover trial using a manikin model. J Emerg Med 45(4):570–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krogh KB, Høyer CB, Ostergaard D et al (2014) Time matters–realism in resuscitation training. Resuscitation 85(8):1093–1098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li Q, Zhou RH, Liu J et al (2013) Pre-training evaluation and feedback improved skills retention of basic life support in medical students. Resuscitation 84(9):1274–1278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Min MK, Yeom SR, Ryu JH et al (2013) A 10-s rest improves chest compression quality during hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective, randomized crossover study using a manikin model. Resuscitation 84(9):1279–1284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mpotos N, Calle P, Deschepper E et al (2013) Retraining basic life support skills using video, voice feedback or both: a randomised controlled trial. Resuscitation 84(1):72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mpotos N, De Wever B, Cleymans N et al (2014) Repetitive sessions of formative self-testing to refresh CPR skills: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Resuscitation 85(9):1282–1286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Na JU, Lee TR, Kang MJ et al (2014) Basic life support skill improvement with newly designed renewal programme: cluster randomised study of small-group-discussion method versus practice-while-watching method. Emerg Med J 31(12):964–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nishiyama C, Iwami T, Kitamura T et al (2014) Long-term retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after shortened chest compression-only training and conventional training: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med 21(1):47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nishiyama C, Iwami T, Murakami Y et al (2015) Effectiveness of simplified 15-min refresher BLS training program: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 90(5):56–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Painter I, Chavez DE, Ike BR et al (2014) Changes to DA-CPR instructions: can we reduce time to first compression and improve quality of bystander CPR? Resuscitation 85(9):1169–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Panchal AR, Meziab O, Stolz U et al (2014) The impact of ultra-brief chest compression-only CPR video training on responsiveness, compression rate, and hands-off time interval among bystanders in a shopping mall. Resuscitation 9:1287–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Park SO, Hong CK, Shin DH et al (2013) Efficacy of metronome sound guidance via a phone speaker during dispatcher-assisted compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by an untrained layperson: a randomised controlled simulation study using a manikin. Emerg Med J 30(8):657–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rössler B, Ziegler M, Hüpfl M et al (2013) Can a flowchart improve the quality of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Resuscitation 84(7):982–986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Semeraro F, Frisoli A, Loconsole C et al (2013) Motion detection technology as a tool for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality training: a randomised crossover mannequin pilot study. Resuscitation 84(4):501–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shin J, Hwang SY, Lee HJ et al (2014) Comparison of CPR quality and rescuer fatigue between standard 30: 2 CPR and chest compression-only CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 28(10):22–59Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sopka S, Biermann H, Rossaint R et al (2013) Resuscitation training in small-group setting–gender matters. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 16(21):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Taelman DG, Huybrechts SA, Peersman W et al (2014) Quality of resuscitation by first responders using the ‘public access resuscitator’: a randomized manikin study. Eur J Emerg Med 21(6):409–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Van de Velde S, Roex A, Vangronsveld K et al (2013) Can training improve laypersons helping behaviour in first aid? A randomised controlled deception trial. Emerg Med J 30(4):292–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van Raemdonck V, Monsieurs KG, Aerenhouts D et al (2014) Teaching basic life support: a prospective randomized study on low-cost training strategies in secondary schools. Eur J Emerg Med 21(4):284–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    van Tulder R, Roth D, Krammel M et al (2014) Effects of repetitive or intensified instructions in telephone assisted, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an investigator-blinded, 4-armed, randomized, factorial simulation trial. Resuscitation 85(1):112–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    van Tulder R, Roth D, Havel C et al (2014) Push as hard as you can instruction for telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized simulation study. J Emerg Med 46(3):363–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    van Tulder R, Laggner R, Kienbacher C et al (2015) The capability of professional- and lay-rescuers to estimate the chest compression-depth target: a short, randomized experiment. Resuscitation 89(4):137–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wutzler A, Bannehr M, von Ulmenstein S et al (2015) Performance of chest compressions with the use of a new audio-visual feedback device: a randomized manikin study in health care professionals. Resuscitation 87(2):81–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yeung J, Davies R, Gao F et al (2014) A randomised control trial of prompt and feedback devices and their impact on quality of chest compressions—a simulation study. Resuscitation 85(4):553–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zapletal B, Greif R, Stumpf D et al (2014) Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study. Resuscitataion 85(4):560–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goliasch G, Ruetzler A, Fischer H et al (2013) Evaluation of advanced airway management in absolutely inexperienced hands: a randomized manikin trial. Eur J Emerg Med 20(5):310–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gruber C, Nabecker S, Wohlfarth P et al (2013) Evaluation of airway management associated hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin follow-up study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 21:10CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jensen JL, Walker M, LeRoux Y et al (2013) Chest compression fraction in simulated cardiac arrest management by primary care paramedics: king laryngeal tube airway versus basic airway management. Prehosp Emerg Care 17(2):285–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ott T, Fischer M, Limbach T et al (2015) The novel intubating laryngeal tube (iLTS-D) is comparable to the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach)—a prospective randomised manikin study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 23:44CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Otten D, Liao MM, Wolken R et al (2014) Comparison of bag-valve-mask hand-sealing techniques in a simulated model. Ann Emerg Med 63(1):6–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Reiter DA, Strother CG, Weingart SD (2013) The quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation using supraglottic airways and intraosseous devices: a simulation trial. Resuscitation 84(1):93–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Shin DH, Choi PC, Na JU et al (2013) Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomised crossover trial using a manikin. Emerg Med J 30(7):527–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Tandon N, McCarthy M, Forehand B et al (2014) Comparison of intubation modalities in a simulated cardiac arrest with uninterrupted chest compressions. Emerg Med J 31(10):799–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cheng A, Overly F, Kessler D et al (2015) Perception of CPR quality: influence of CPR feedback, just-in-time CPR training and provider role. Resuscitation 87(2):44–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Chung TN, Bae J, Kim EC et al (2013) Induction of a shorter compression phase is correlated with a deeper chest compression during metronome-guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a manikin study. Emerg Med J 30(7):551–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Eisenberg Chavez D, Meischke H, Painter I et al (2013) Should dispatchers instruct lay bystanders to undress patients before performing CPR? A randomized simulation study. Resuscitation 84(7):979–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Foo NP, Chang JH, Su SB et al (2013) A stabilization device to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during ambulance transportation: a randomized crossover trial. Resuscitation 84(11):1579–1584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Oh J, Chee Y, Lim T et al (2014) Chest compression with kneeling posture in hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover simulation study. Emerg Med Australas 26(6):585–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Fuerch JH, Yamada NK, Coelho PR et al (2015) Impact of a novel decision support tool on adherence to Neonatal Resuscitation Program algorithm. Resuscitation 88(3):52–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kim S, You JS, Lee HS et al (2013) Quality of chest compressions performed by inexperienced rescuers in simulated cardiac arrest associated with pregnancy. Resuscitation 84(1):98–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Krogh LQ, Bjørnshave K, Vestergaard LD et al (2015) E-learning in pediatric basic life support: a randomized controlled non-inferiority study. Resuscitation 90(5):7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Martin P, Theobald P, Kemp A et al (2013) Real-time feedback can improve infant manikin cardiopulmonary resuscitation by up to 79%—a randomised controlled trial. Resuscitation 84(8):1125–1130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rodriguez SA, Sutton RM, Berg MD et al (2014) Simplified dispatcher instructions improve bystander chest compression quality during simulated pediatric resuscitation. Resuscitation 85(1):119–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kim MJ, Lee HS, Kim S et al (2015) Optimal chest compression technique for paediatric cardiac arrest victims. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 23:36CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lee HY, Jeung KW, Lee BK et al (2013) The performances of standard and ResMed masks during bag-valve-mask ventilation. Prehosp Emerg Care 17(2):235–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Leventis C, Chalkias A, Sampanis MA et al (2014) Emergency airway management by paramedics: comparison between standard endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway, and I-gel. Eur J Emerg Med 21(5):371–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Park SO, Shin DH, Lee KR et al (2013) Efficacy of the Disposcope endoscope, a new video laryngoscope, for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilisation by semirigid neck collar: comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope using a simulation study on a manikin. Emerg Med J 30(4):270–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Schober P, Krage R, van Groeningen D et al (2014) Inverse intubation in entrapped trauma casualties: a simulator based, randomised cross-over comparison of direct, indirect and video laryngoscopy. Emerg Med J 31(12):959–963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Shin DH, Han SK, Choi PC et al (2013) Tracheal intubation during chest compressions performed by qualified emergency physicians unfamiliar with the Pentax-Airwayscope. Eur J Emerg Med 20(3):187–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Jones N, White ML, Tofil N et al (2014) Randomized trial comparing two mass casualty triage systems (JumpSTART versus SALT) in a pediatric simulated mass casualty event. Prehosp Emerg Care 18(3):417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Luigi Ingrassia P, Ragazzoni L, Carenzo L et al (2015) Virtual reality and live simulation: a comparison between two simulation tools for assessing mass casualty triage skills. Eur J Emerg Med 22(2):121–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wolf P, Bigalke M, Graf BM et al (2014) Evaluation of a novel algorithm for primary mass casualty triage by paramedics in a physician manned EMS system: a dummy based trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22:50CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Helm M, Hossfeld B, Jost C et al (2013) Emergency cricothyroidotomy performed by inexperienced clinicians—surgical technique versus indicator-guided puncture technique. Emerg Med J 30(8):646–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Mabry RL, Nichols MC, Shiner DC et al (2014) A comparison of two open surgical cricothyroidotomy techniques by military medics using a cadaver model. Ann Emerg Med 63(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Feldman A, Hart KW, Lindsell CJ et al (2015) Randomized controlled trial of a scoring aid to improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by emergency medical services providers. Ann Emerg Med 65(3):325–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Moreira ME, Hernandez C, Stevens AD et al (2015) Color-coded prefilled medication syringes decrease time to delivery and dosing error in simulated emergency department pediatric resuscitations. Ann Emerg Med 66(2):97–106CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Rörtgen D, Bergrath S, Rossaint R et al (2013) Comparison of physician staffed emergency teams with paramedic teams assisted by telemedicine—a randomized, controlled simulation study. Resuscitation 84(1):85–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    The Commonwealth fund task force on academic health centers (2002) Training tomorrow’s doctors: the Medical Education Mission of Academic Health Centers. The Commonwealth Fund, New York.–the-medical-education-mission-of-academic-health-centers. Accessed 02 June 2017
  108. 108.
    Epstein RM (2007) Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 356(4):387–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Stephenson A, Higgs R, Sugarman J (2001) Teaching professional development in medical schools. Lancet 357(9259):867–870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Cheng A, Lang T, Starr S et al (2014) Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 133(5):e1313–e1323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Mundell WC, Kennedy CC, Szostek JH et al (2013) Simulation technology for resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 84(9):1174–1183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R et al (2013) Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teacher 35(1):e867–e898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G (2007) A systematic review of titles and abstracts of experimental studies in medical education: many informative elements missing. Med Educ 41(11):1074–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G (2007) Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ 41(8):737–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S (2011) Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ 45(3):227–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Philippon AL, Bokobza J, Bloom B et al (2016) Effect of simulated patient death on emergency worker’s anxiety: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intensive Care 6(1):60CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kahan BC, Cro S, Doré CJ et al (2014) Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials. Trials 15:456CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, For the CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Friedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6):e1002165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P et al (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383:267–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service d’Accueil des Urgences, Emergency Département, Hôpital LariboisièreAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.Faculté de MédecineUniversité DiderotParisFrance
  3. 3.INSERM U1153, Statistic and Epidemiologic Research Center Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), METHODS TeamHotel-Dieu HospitalParisFrance
  4. 4.Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Paris Univ-06ParisFrance
  5. 5.Service des Urgences-Hôpital Saint AntoineAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP)ParisFrance
  6. 6.Ilumens Simulation DepartmentParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations