Dear Editor:

The article "Use of High-Fidelity Simulation for Staff Education/Development: A Systematic Review of the Literature" (Hallenbeck, 2012) explores use of simulation for nursing education and evaluation in healthcare settings. However, it does not meet the criteria for a systematic review. The use of one online database, CINAHL, is inadequate for a comprehensive literature search. In addition, there is a lack of description of the electronic search strategy, and key words are not identified. The quality appraisal of the systematic review is lacking in explanation of the chosen tool: the Research Quality Review Rating Scale. This scale appears to be inappropriate, and information regarding the validity of the scale is not cited within the text or reference list. Other validated tools such as the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and PRISMA guidelines would have been more appropriate (Krainovich-Miller, Haber, Yost, & Jacobs, 2007).

Strict guidelines should be followed for adequate evaluation and application of a systematic review of the literature. There may be a dearth of available articles regarding the use of simulation in staff education, but a comprehensive review should include more than one database, the use of key words (identified), and a validated quality appraisal tool (Polit & Beck, 2012). The community of nursing scholars must support stringent research guidelines to advance the science of nursing education with competent patient care as the ultimate outcome.

Respectfully,

Melanie L. Cason MSN, RN, CNE

Collaborative Partner Service Coordinator, Health

Care Simulation South Carolina

Nursing Instructor, College of Nursing, Medical

University of South Carolina

References