Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements
  1. Adam Cheng1,
  2. David Kessler2,
  3. Ralph Mackinnon3,4,
  4. Todd P Chang5,
  5. Vinay M Nadkarni6,
  6. Elizabeth A Hunt7,
  7. Jordan Duval-Arnould7,
  8. Yiqun Lin8,
  9. David A Cook9,10,
  10. Martin Pusic11,
  11. Joshua Hui12,
  12. David Moher13,
  13. Matthias Egger14,
  14. Marc Auerbach15
  15. for the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators
    1. 1KidSIM-ASPIRE Research Program, Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    2. 2Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
    3. 3Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    4. 4Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    5. 5Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California
    6. 6The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
    7. 7Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    8. 8Alberta Children's Hospital, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary
    9. 9Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, Mayo Clinic Online Learning
    10. 10Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
    11. 11Institute for Innovations in Medical Education, Division of Education Quality & Analytics, NYU School of Medicine
    12. 12Department of Emergency Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
    13. 13Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
    14. 14Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern
    15. 15Department of Pediatrics, Section of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
    1. Correspondence to Dr Adam Cheng, KidSIM-ASPIRE Research Program, Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Alberta Children's Hospital, 2888 Shaganappi Trail NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3B 6A8; chenger{at}me.com

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Introduction

    Simulation has seen growing use in health care as a ‘tool, device and/or environment (that) mimics an aspect of clinical care’1 in order to improve health care provider performance, health care processes and, ultimately, patient outcomes.1–5 The use of simulation in health care has been accompanied by an expanding body of simulation-based research (SBR) addressing educational and clinical issues.6–15 Broadly speaking, SBR can be broken down into two categories: (1) research addressing the efficacy of simulation as a training methodology (ie, simulation-based education as the subject of research); and (2) research using simulation as an investigative methodology (ie, simulation as the environment for research).16 ,17 Many features of SBR overlap with traditional clinical or educational research. However, the use of simulation in research introduces a unique set of features that must be considered when designing the methodology, and reported when publishing the study.16–19

    As has been shown in other fields of medicine,20 the quality of reporting in health professions education research is inconsistent and sometimes poor.1 ,11 ,21–23 Systematic reviews in medical education have quantitatively documented missing elements in the abstracts and main texts of published reports, with particular deficits in the reporting of study design, definitions of independent and dependent variables, and study limitations.21–23 In research specific to simulation for health care professions education, a systematic review noted many studies failing to ‘clearly describe the context, instructional design or outcomes’.1 Another study found that only 3% of studies incorporating debriefing in simulation education reported all the essential characteristics of debriefing.11 Failure to adequately describe the key elements of a research study impairs the efforts of editors, reviewers and readers to critically appraise strengths and weaknesses24 ,25 or apply and replicate findings.26 As such, …

    View Full Text

    Request permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.