Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Bokken L, Rethans JJ, Scherpbier AJ, Van Der Vleuten CP. Strengths and weaknesses of simulated and real patients in the teaching of skills to medical students: A review. Simul Healthc 2008; 3: 161–169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009; 43: 312–319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis2nd, H Cooper, LV Hedges, JC Valentine. Russell Sage Foundation, New York 2009; 221–235
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 1988
   Google Scholar
• Cook DA, 2012a. If you teach them, they will learn: Why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research, Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17:305–310
   Google Scholar
• Cook DA, 2012b. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: What role do they play?, Medical Teacher, In press
   Google Scholar
• Cook DA. One drop at a time: Research to advance the science of simulation. Simul Healthc 2010c; 5: 1–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: A framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Medl Educ 2008a; 42: 128–133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra S, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin P, Hatala R. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation vs other instructional methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 2012, In press
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010a; 85: 1589–1602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin P, Hamstra S. Technology-Enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2011; 306: 978–988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-Based Learning in the Health Professions: A Meta-Analysis. JAMA 2008b; 300: 1181–1196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010b; 85: 909–922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: A critical literature review and proposed next steps. Medical Education 2009; 43: 303–311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtin F, Altman DG, Elbourne D. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. I: Continuous outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2131–2144
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 1088–1097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557–560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 2004
   Google Scholar
• Issenberg SB, Mcgaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Med Teac 2005; 27: 10–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick D. Revisiting Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Training Dev 1996; 50(1)54–59
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin HM. Waiting for Godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education. New Directions for Evaluation 2001; 90: 55–68
   Google Scholar
• May W, Park JH, Lee JP. A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996–2005. Med Teach 2009; 31: 487–492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011; 86: 706–711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation-based medical education. Med Educ 2006; 40: 792–797
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ 2010; 44: 50–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264–269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 413: 43–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris SB, Deshon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Meth 2002; 7: 105–125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10(Suppl 1)21–34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reed DA, Beckman TJ, Wright SM, Levine RB, Kern DE, Cook DA. Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: Quality of submissions to JGIM's Medical Education Special Issue. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 903–907
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. J Am Med Assoc 2007; 298: 1002–1009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed DA, Kern DE, Levine RB, Wright SM. Costs and funding for published medical education research. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 294: 1052–1057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinger MB. The pharmacology of simulation: A conceptual framework to inform progress in simulation research. Simul Healthc 2010; 5: 8–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wells GA, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P, The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [Accessed 29 February, 2012] Available from http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm
   Google Scholar
• Zendejas B, Wang AT, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Cook DA, 2012. Cost: The missing outcome in simulation-based medical education research: A systematic review. Surgery; Online early doi 10.1016/j.surg.2012.06.025
   Google Scholar