title: Simulation technology for resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals.
  
  
  METHODS
  MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews.
  
  
  METHODS
  Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing "booster" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I(2) values >50%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of "booster" practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.
authors.affiliation: Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. mundell.william@mayo.edu
authors.forename: William C
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Mundell
authors.forename: Cassie C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Kennedy
authors.forename: Jason H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Szostek
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Cook
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004501:Education, Medical / Q000379:methods; D004521:Educational Measurement; D005260:Female; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012151:Resuscitation / Q000193:education*
keywords: Advanced cardiac life support; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Hospital rapid response team; Mass casualty incidents; Patient simulation; Resuscitation