Background
Simulation-Based Learning (SBL) is increasingly adopted in medical education across various specialties, employing realistic simulations to significantly enhance learning experiences. However, a comprehensive evaluation of its effectiveness specifically in endocrinology has not yet been conducted. The study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the impact of SBL versus Non-Simulation-Based Learning (NSBL) on knowledge acquisition, skills, satisfaction, and interest in learning among endocrinology trainees.
Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Weipu, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) until March 2024. We included randomized controlled trials comparing SBL to NSBL in endocrinology education. The quality evaluation relied on the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. The main results included evaluations from both theoretical and practical assessments. Additional measures consisted of assessing satisfaction and interest in learning.
Results
We identified 22 studies suitable for systematic review and 21 for meta-analysis, involving a total of 2517 participants. SBL greatly enhanced theoretical knowledge [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68–1.32,
P
< 0.00001, I
2
= 89%] and practical skills (SMD = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.11–2.01,
P
< 0.00001, I
2
= 93%) compared to NSBL. Additionally, SBL was associated with higher satisfaction and greater interest in learning. No significant publication bias was detected, and sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these findings.
Conclusions
SBL significantly enhances knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and interest in learning within endocrinology education compared to NSBL. These findings support the integration of high-quality SBL into endocrinology curricula to improve educational outcomes. Future research should explore the lasting effects of SBL on knowledge retention and clinical practice, as well as to evaluate its cost-effectiveness and compatibility with various educational tools in diverse settings.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-024-06010-z.