Randomized trial assesses simulation training benefits for learning obstetric emergencies in healthcare students, indicating improved outcomes.
Objective To assess whether simulation‐based education improves learning outcomes in obstetric emergency management among healthcare students compared with traditional teaching methods. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to September 2025 using controlled vocabulary and free‐text terms related to healthcare students and obstetric emergencies. Only randomized controlled trials published in English were included. Methods of Study Selection Randomized controlled trials comparing simulation‐based training with nonsimulation educational methods among healthcare students were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts using Rayyan software, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Tabulation, Integration, and Results Data were extracted independently using a standardized form, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean differences were pooled using a random‐effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Seven studies ( n = 333) were included in the meta‐analysis. Simulation‐based training significantly improved post‐test knowledge compared with conventional methods (SMD 0.84; 95% CI 0.36–1.32; prediction interval −0.36 to 2.05; I 2 = 75.1%), corresponding to an estimated increase of 8.4 points on the Knowledge Assessment Form (95% CI 3.6–13.2). Additional trials reported improvements in teamwork and critical thinking. Conclusion Simulation‐based education was associated with greater knowledge gains than traditional teaching methods in obstetric emergency training among healthcare students. However, substantial heterogeneity and a prediction interval that crosses the null suggest that its effectiveness may vary across contexts. Further research should evaluate long‐term retention and clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sampaio et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: