ReviewHealth science reports2026
Simulation-Based Education Versus Traditional Teaching for Nursing Students: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Simulation-based education is increasingly used in nursing programs to enhance clinical competence, yet its effectiveness compared with traditional teaching methods remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of simulation-based education compared with traditional teaching methods in improving knowledge, clinical skills, and related outcomes among prelicensure nursing students through a systematic review. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on August 18, 2025, for studies published. Eligible studies included prelicensure nursing students who compared SBE (high/low fidelity manikins, standardised patients, virtual/augmented reality, or serious games) to traditional education. The outcomes included knowledge acquisition, clinical skills, OSCE performance, satisfaction, confidence, and retention. We considered randomised controlled, quasi-experimental, and controlled before-and-after trials. Results: Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria (16 non-randomised, 14 randomised controlled trials). SBE was generally associated with improved knowledge acquisition and retention compared with traditional methods, with notable gains in CPR, vital signs, cardiac auscultation, and paediatric nursing, particularly in randomised studies. SBE groups also demonstrated superior clinical and procedural performance, including suctioning, nasogastric tube feeding, transfusion tasks, and OSCE scores, with some effects sustained at 1 to 3 months. Learner satisfaction and self-efficacy outcomes were variable; results generally favoured SBE in higher-quality studies, although several reported no significant difference. GPA outcomes showed no meaningful improvement. Conclusion: The available evidence, predominantly from quasi-experimental studies, suggests that SBE may offer advantages over traditional teaching in knowledge acquisition, clinical skills, and OSCE performance among prelicensure nursing students, though these findings should be interpreted in light of the methodological heterogeneity of included studies. Benefits on satisfaction and confidence were inconsistent. These findings support the considered integration of well-designed simulation into nursing curricula to advance competency-based education and patient safety.
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.