Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • CE - Systematic Review
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD et al (2003) Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med 78(8):783–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cook DA (2014) How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta-analysis of outcomes of simulation-based education. Med Educ 48(8):750–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1078–1089

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Society for simulation in Healthcare (2016) About simulation. http://ssih.org/About-Simulation. Accessed 26 Dec 2016

  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):10–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR et al (1999) Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA 282(9):861–866

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  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). http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_930641/fr/simulation-en-sante. Accessed 22 Mar 2017

  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):210–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):397–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray DJ, Boulet JR, Avidan M et al (2007) Performance of residents and anesthesiologists in a simulation based skill assessment. Anesthesiology 107(5):705–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):145–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hardoff D, Gefen A, Sagi D et al (2016) Dignity in adolescent health care: a simulation-based training programme. Med Educ 50(5):570–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):3489–3493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):30318–30319

    Google Scholar 

  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):184–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):40–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):489–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):599–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bristol Medical Simulation Centre. Worldwide sim database. http://www.bmsc.co.uk/. Accessed 26 Dec 2016

  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 12:455–460

    Google Scholar 

  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):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):978–988

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1633–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):429–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):601–605

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Psaty BM, Prentice RL (2010) Minimizing bias in randomized trials: the importance of blinding. JAMA 304(7):793–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:b3244

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tierney JF, Stewart LA (2005) Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 34(1):79–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):22–24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ioannidis JP (2016) Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med 13(6):e1002049

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):g1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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:d5928

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ et al (2007) Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 298(9):1006–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):e1000097

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):142–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 21 Mar 2017

  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):1119–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):21–47

    Google Scholar 

  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):124–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  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):43–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):643–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):189–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1591–1595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):809–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):85–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):74–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):570–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Krogh KB, Høyer CB, Ostergaard D et al (2014) Time matters–realism in resuscitation training. Resuscitation 85(8):1093–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1274–1278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1279–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):72–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1282–1286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):964–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):56–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1169–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:1287–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):657–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rössler B, Ziegler M, Hüpfl M et al (2013) Can a flowchart improve the quality of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Resuscitation 84(7):982–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):501–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):22–59

    Google Scholar 

  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):30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):409–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):292–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):284–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):112–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):363–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):137–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):81–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):560–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):310–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:10

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):285–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:44

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):527–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):799–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):44–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):551–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):979–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1579–1584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):585–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):52–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):98–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1125–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:36

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):371–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):959–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):187–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):417–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):121–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:50

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):646–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):325–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):97–106

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):85–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2002/apr/training-tomorrows-doctors–the-medical-education-mission-of-academic-health-centers. Accessed 02 June 2017

  108. Epstein RM (2007) Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 356(4):387–396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Stephenson A, Higgs R, Sugarman J (2001) Teaching professional development in medical schools. Lancet 357(9259):867–870

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Cheng A, Lang T, Starr S et al (2014) Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 133(5):e1313–e1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Mundell WC, Kennedy CC, Szostek JH et al (2013) Simulation technology for resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 84(9):1174–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1074–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G (2007) Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ 41(8):737–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S (2011) Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ 45(3):227–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):60

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:456

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 8:18

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Friedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13(6):e1002165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P et al (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383:267–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Accueil des Urgences, Emergency Département, Hôpital Lariboisière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 2 Rue Ambroise Paré, 75010, Paris, France

    Anthony Chauvin, Jennifer Truchot & Patrick Plaisance

  2. Faculté de Médecine, Université Diderot, Paris, France

    Anthony Chauvin, Jennifer Truchot & Patrick Plaisance

  3. INSERM U1153, Statistic and Epidemiologic Research Center Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), METHODS Team, Hotel-Dieu Hospital, Paris, France

    Anthony Chauvin, Aida Bafeta & Youri Yordanov

  4. Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Paris Univ-06, Paris, France

    Dominique Pateron & Youri Yordanov

  5. Service des Urgences-Hôpital Saint Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris, France

    Dominique Pateron & Youri Yordanov

  6. Ilumens Simulation Department, Paris Descartes University, 45 rue des Saint Pères, 75006, Paris, France

    Jennifer Truchot

Authors
  1. Anthony Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Truchot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aida Bafeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominique Pateron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Plaisance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Youri Yordanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Chauvin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (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.

Funding

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chauvin, A., Truchot, J., Bafeta, A. et al. Randomized controlled trials of simulation-based interventions in Emergency Medicine: a methodological review. Intern Emerg Med 13, 433–444 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1770-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1770-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation