| Yeung (2019) | Roh et al. (2016) | Park et al. (2017) | Mohamed and Fashafsheh (2019) | Lee et al. (2016) | Kim (2018) | Karabacak et al. (2019) | Jørgensen et al. (2018) | Hung et al. (2021) | Arslan et al. (2018) | Al Gharibi et al. (2021) | Author |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Element of study Introduction background |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | Rationale Literature review |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Problem statement Study objective Research Q. |
| 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | Guiding concept or theoretical framework |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Design of studies |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Strength of study design: quantitative |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Strength of study design: qualitative |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Sample and setting |
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | Simulation development |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | Description of simulation |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | Description of simulation feedback debriefing |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Study instruments: quantitative |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Study instruments: qualitative |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | Results |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Discussion |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | IRB approval exemption: ethics |
| 36 | 42 | 49 | 39 | 47 | 44 | 37 | 39 | 43 | 45 | 48 | Total |
| 64% | 75% | 87.5% | 70% | 84% | 79% | 66% | 70% | 77% | 80% | 86% | Total percentage |
| 4 excellent, 3 very good, 2 good, 1 poor, 0 unsatisfactory. The maximum score possible for mixed qualitative and quantitative studies is 64, and the maximum possible score for either qualitative or quantitative studies is 56. | |||||||||||