Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Hossino et al., 2018, USA [19]

Single arm pre-post study

Residents/n = 26

Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test

Confidence survey

Improved confidence in all evaluated aspects of the survey after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.01

Malmstrom et al., 2017, Sweden [20]

Single arm pre-post study

physicians, nurses and midwives/n = 92

Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test

Participants’ self-assessed questionnaire: communication, leadership, confidence and technical skills

Improved participants’ self-assessed ability to communication, leadership, confidence and technical skills, p < 0.001

Surcouf et al., 2013, USA [11]

Single arm pre-post study

Residents/n = 32

Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test

Knowledge, skill and teamwork performance; Confidence survey

Improved performance and confidence after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.05

Finan et al., 2012, Canada [21]

Single arm pre-post study

First-year pediatric residents/n = 13

Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test

Skill performance assessed by Neonatal intubation checklist and Global rating scale

Improved skill performance scores after high-fidelity intervention in simulations test (p < 0.05) rather than real-life test

Sawyer et al., 2011, USA [22]

Single arm pre-post study

Pediatric and Family Medicine residents/n = 30 (15 teams)

Pre-intervention test vs. Post intervention test

NRP performance scores and times

Improved overall NRP performance scores and positive-pressure ventilation after high-fidelity intervention, p < 0.05

Wang et al., 2017, China [23]

RCT

Medical students/n = 180

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 90) vs. traditional training group (n = 90)

Knowledge test; Skill performance test; Satisfaction survey

Improved knowledge scores and skill performance in high-fidelity group, p < 0.001; Improved satisfactory in learning theoretical knowledge, learning interest, learning initiative and positivity, and practical ability

Curran et al., 2015, Canada [14]

RCT

Third year medical students/n = 66

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 31) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 35)

Integrated skills performance; Teamwork behaviors; Participant satisfaction scores; Confidence survey

No difference in skill performance (p = 0.45) and teamwork behavior (p = 0.144); Improved satisfaction scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01; Improved confidence in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01

Nimbalkar et al., 2015, India [10]

RCT

Undergraduate students/n = 101

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 50) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 51)

Neonatal resuscitation knowledge by written test; Skills performance by Megacode; Long-term outcomes (3 months)

Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; No difference in skill performance, p = 0.13

Chen et al., 2015, China [24]

RCT

Medical students/n = 40

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 20) vs. traditional training group (n = 20)

Knowledge test; Skills performance test; Satisfaction survey

Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.01; Improved satisfactory in learning interest, learning initiative and positivity, practical ability, Teamwork awareness, critical thinking, and clinical thinking

Rubio-Gurung et al., 2014, France [25]

RCT

Level 1 and Level 2 maternities/n = 12

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 6) vs. No intervention group (n = 6)

Technical scores (TS); Team performance scores (TPS)

Improved in median TS and TPS in the Intervention group than in the Control group after the training sessions, p < 0.05

Cheng et al., 2013, Canada [13]

RCT

Interprofessional health careteams/n = 90

Non-scripted debriefing, low-fidelity simulator (n = 23) vs. scripted debriefing, low-fidelity simulator (n = 22) vs. non-scripted debriefing, high-fidelity simulator (n = 23) vs. scripted debriefing, high-fidelity simulator (n = 22)

Medical knowledge by multiple choice question (MCQ) test; Team clinical management by Clinical Performance Tool (CPT); Team leader’s behavioral performance by Behavioral Assessment Tool (BAT)

No difference in MCQ (p = 0.67), BAT (p = 0.72), and CPT (p = 0.1) between high-fidelity group and low-fidelity group after debriefing

Campbell et al., 2009, Canada [26]

RCT

First-year family medicine residents/n = 15

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 8) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 7)

Experience rating for Knowledge test; Megacode for performance

Improved knowledge scores in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05; Improved skill performance in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05

Lee et al., 2012, USA [27]

RCT

2nd-4th year emergency medicine residents/n = 27

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 12) vs. traditional training group (n = 15)

Knowledge, skill performance; Confidence survey

Improved knowledge, skill and confidence scores from baseline to final assessment in high-fidelity group, p < 0.05

Finan et al., 2012, Canada [28]

RCT

Neonatal trainees/n = 16

High-fidelity simulator group (n = 8) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 8)

NRP performance scores; Non-technical team performance

No difference between high-fidelity group and low-fidelity group in NRP performance scores (p = 0.17) or non-technical skills performance between groups (p = 0.52)

Thomas et al., 2010, USA [12]

RCT

Residents/n = 34

High-fidelity simulator + team training group (n = 10) vs. Low-fidelity simulator + team training group (n = 9) vs. Low-fidelity simulator group (n = 15)

Teamwork outcomes; Performance score and resuscitation duration

Improved teamwork event behaviors in high-fidelity groups (p = 0.004); No difference between high-fidelity team training and low-fidelity team training group in NRP performance (p = 0.999) or resuscitation duration (p = 0.452)