How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta-analysis of outcomes of simulation-based education

Medical Education

Volumn 48, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 750-760

  Cook, David A ^a,b  

^a Mayo Clinic College of Medicine   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84904015645     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/medu.12473     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Dauphinee WD, Wood-Dauphinee S. The need for evidence in medical education: the development of best evidence medical education as an opportunity to inform, guide, and sustain medical education research. Acad Med 2004;79:925-30.
2. Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR. BEME Guide No. 1: Best evidence medical education. Med Teach 1999;21:553-62.
3. van der Vleuten CPM, Dolmans DHJM, Scherpbier AJJA. The need for evidence in education. Med Teach 2000;22:246-50.
4. Thistlethwaite J, Davies H, Dornan T, Greenhalgh T, Hammick M, Scalese R. What is evidence? Reflections on the AMEE symposium, Vienna, August 2011. Med Teach 2012;34:454-7.
5. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Realist methods in medical education research: what are they and what can they contribute? Med Educ 2012;46:89-96.
6. Regehr G. It's NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ 2010;44:31-9.
7. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ 2011;45:227-38.
8. Cook DA. Avoiding confounded comparisons in education research. Med Educ 2009;43:102-4.
9. Gruppen LD. Improving medical education research. Teach Learn Med 2007;19:331-5.
10. Lingard L. Qualitative research in the RIME community: critical reflections and future directions. Acad Med 2007;82 (10 Suppl):129-30.
11. Bordage G. Moving the field forward: going beyond quantitative-qualitative. Acad Med 2007;82 (10 Suppl):126-8.
12. Shea JA, Arnold L, Mann KV. A RIME perspective on the quality and relevance of current and future medical education research. Acad Med 2004;79:931-8.
13. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ 2008;42:128-33.
14. Albert M, Hodges B, Regehr G. Research in medical education: balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007;12:103-15.
15. Norman G. Fifty years of medical education research: waves of migration. Med Educ 2011;45:785-91.
16. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ 2007;41:737-45.
17. Prasad V, Vandross A, Toomey C et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc 2013;88:790-8.
18. van de Wiel MW, Schmidt HG, Boshuizen HP. A failure to reproduce the intermediate effect in clinical case recall. Acad Med 1998;73:894-900.
19. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007;298:1002-9.
20. Baernstein A, Liss HK, Carney PA, Elmore JG. Trends in study methods used in undergraduate medical education research, 1969-2007. JAMA 2007;298:1038-45.
21. Todres M, Stephenson A, Jones R. Medical education research remains the poor relation. BMJ 2007;335:333-5.
22. Cook DA. If you teach them, they will learn: why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012;17:305-10.
23. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992;327:248-54.
24. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Cumulative Meta-Analysis. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: Wiley 2009;371-6.
25. Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 2012;7:308-20.
26. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach 2013;35:e867-98.
27. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;306:978-88.
28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9.
29. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988.
30. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009;43:312-9.
31. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:1181-96.
32. Cook DA. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: complementary roles for non-systematic and systematic reviews. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13:391-5.
33. Cook DA. Randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach 2012;34:468-73.
34. Cronbach LJ. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am Psychol 1975;30:116-27.
35. Eva KW, Lingard L. What's next? A guiding question for educators engaged in educational research. Med Educ 2008;42:752-4.