Simulation-Based Training Tools for Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Plastic Surgery, St. John Paul II Specialist Medical Centre, 57-320 Polanica-Zdrój, Poland
- 2SudetiaMed Medical Center, 57-300 Kłodzko, Poland
- 3Students’ Scientific Association of Computer Analysis and Artificial Intelligence at the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland
- 4Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, 40-027 Katowice, Poland
- 5Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, 40-752 Katowice, Poland
Abstract
Background: Simulation may supplement operative exposure in cleft lip surgery, but the strength and clinical relevance of evidence remain uncertain. This systematic review evaluated cleft lip repair simulators, focusing on characteristics, validity evidence, educational effectiveness, and implementation. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched on 1 August 2026. Eligible studies were original English-language studies published in 2016–2026 evaluating cleft lip repair simulators for training or assessment. Non-original reports and studies without an eligible training or assessment component were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Validity evidence was assessed using Messick’s framework, educational effectiveness using an adapted McGaghie framework, and methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018. Findings were synthesized narratively. The protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 5 August 2026, and registered on 11 August 2026 (CRD420261469105). Results: Twenty-four publications were included. Two publications (8.3%) were categorized as educational effectiveness not evaluated, 14 (58.3%) as McGaghie Level 1, and eight (33.3%) as Level 2; none reached Levels 3–5. Eight publications demonstrated objectively measured improvement in knowledge or performance following an educational intervention or repeated simulation. Response Process validity evidence was identified in 19 publications (79.2%), whereas Content-related validity evidence was identified in 13 publications (54.2%). Internal Structure and Relations to Other Variables were less frequently supported, and Consequences evidence was absent. Evidence was limited by small samples, heterogeneous designs, and frequent reliance on subjective outcomes. Conclusions: Cleft lip simulation can produce measurable educational benefits, but evidence of transfer to clinical performance or patient outcomes is lacking. Future studies should prioritize objective assessment, stronger validity and reliability evidence, accessible task-specific models, and evaluation of clinical transfer. No external funding was received.
Related
- Virtual Reality Simulation in Colonoscopy Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Published from 2019 to 2024
- Protocol for a systematic review of the predictive and translational validity of simulation-based training in neurosurgery
- Musculoskeletal symptoms among teleworkers assessed using validated tools: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis
- From Static Atlases to Intelligent Learning Systems: A Scoping Review of Imaging-Based Tools and Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications for Facial Aesthetic Education and Training
- Effectiveness of digital self-assessment and support tools for improving maternal and child health in Africa: a protocol of a systematic review
BibTeX
@article{jaworski2026simulationbased,
title = {{Simulation-Based Training Tools for Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review}},
author = {Aleksander Jaworski and Katarzyna Ochman and Kamil Szemik and Dominika Kaczyńska and Oliwia Barnaś and Aleksandra Gaweł and Wiktoria Nowojewska and Zofia Pankowska and Marta Młynek and Anna Kożuch and Jakub Kufel and Ireneusz Łątkowski and Aneta Drozdowska and Piotr Drozdowski},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15207911},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7911},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Simulation-Based Training Tools for Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review
AU - Aleksander Jaworski
AU - Katarzyna Ochman
AU - Kamil Szemik
AU - Dominika Kaczyńska
AU - Oliwia Barnaś
AU - Aleksandra Gaweł
AU - Wiktoria Nowojewska
AU - Zofia Pankowska
AU - Marta Młynek
AU - Anna Kożuch
AU - Jakub Kufel
AU - Ireneusz Łątkowski
AU - Aneta Drozdowska
AU - Piotr Drozdowski
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15207911
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7911
AB - Background: Simulation may supplement operative exposure in cleft lip surgery, but the strength and clinical relevance of evidence remain uncertain. This systematic review evaluated cleft lip repair simulators, focusing on characteristics, validity evidence, educational effectiveness, and implementation. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched on 1 August 2026. Eligible studies were original English-language studies published in 2016–2026 evaluating cleft lip repair simulators for training or assessment. Non-original reports and studies without an eligible training or assessment component were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Validity evidence was assessed using Messick’s framework, educational effectiveness using an adapted McGaghie framework, and methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018. Findings were synthesized narratively. The protocol was submitted to PROSPERO on 5 August 2026, and registered on 11 August 2026 (CRD420261469105). Results: Twenty-four publications were included. Two publications (8.3%) were categorized as educational effectiveness not evaluated, 14 (58.3%) as McGaghie Level 1, and eight (33.3%) as Level 2; none reached Levels 3–5. Eight publications demonstrated objectively measured improvement in knowledge or performance following an educational intervention or repeated simulation. Response Process validity evidence was identified in 19 publications (79.2%), whereas Content-related validity evidence was identified in 13 publications (54.2%). Internal Structure and Relations to Other Variables were less frequently supported, and Consequences evidence was absent. Evidence was limited by small samples, heterogeneous designs, and frequent reliance on subjective outcomes. Conclusions: Cleft lip simulation can produce measurable educational benefits, but evidence of transfer to clinical performance or patient outcomes is lacking. Future studies should prioritize objective assessment, stronger validity and reliability evidence, accessible task-specific models, and evaluation of clinical transfer. No external funding was received.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -