SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Efficacy of simulation-based training for airway management in preparing hospitals for the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In response to the coronavirus pandemic, hospitals worldwide implemented simulation-based training to help healthcare providers (HCPs) adapt to revised protocols for airway management in patients with infectious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic review of simulation-based studies on airway management in COVID-19 patients, with the aim of analyzing the findings of these studies and consolidating evidence-based recommendations to optimize responses to possible future pandemics. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library on 25 August 2022. As different studies measured different outcomes (e.g., only confidence, only knowledge, or both) in different ways, a random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and change scores were calculated. Results: The systematic review included 20 studies after screening 141 articles. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in participants' confidence and knowledge after simulation training, as evidenced by negative standardized mean differences (SMDs, Cohen's d). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were robust across various correlation estimates. However, there was a high risk of publication bias, as funnel plots showed asymmetry and studies fell outside the 95% confidence interval. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the effectiveness of simulation training in improving healthcare providers' confidence and knowledge regarding airway management during pandemics. The findings underscore the positive impact of simulation-based education, as demonstrated by significant improvements from pre-training to post-training assessments. However, the observed publication bias suggests that additional high-quality, unbiased studies are necessary to strengthen the evidence base and inform future training programs for pandemic preparedness. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022293708.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.