Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25858862›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2015

3D immersive patient simulators and their impact on learning success: a thematic review.

Robert Kleinert, Roger Wahba, De-Hua Chang, Patrick Plum, Arnulf H Hölscher, Dirk L Stippel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluating the didactic value of 3D visualization in otosurgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Robert KleinertDepartment of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. robert.kleinert@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5691-2493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmersive patient simulators (IPSs) combine the simulation of virtual patients with a three-dimensional (3D) environment and, thus, allow an illusionary immersion into a synthetic world, similar to computer games. Playful learning in a 3D environment is motivating and allows repetitive training and internalization of medical workflows (ie, procedural knowledge) without compromising real patients. The impact of this innovative educational concept on learning success requires review of feasibility and validity.

objectiveIt was the aim of this paper to conduct a survey of all immersive patient simulators currently available. In addition, we address the question of whether the use of these simulators has an impact on knowledge gain by summarizing the existing validation studies.

methodsA systematic literature search via PubMed was performed using predefined inclusion criteria (ie, virtual worlds, focus on education of medical students, validation testing) to identify all available simulators. Validation testing was defined as the primary end point.

resultsThere are currently 13 immersive patient simulators available. Of these, 9 are Web-based simulators and represent feasibility studies. None of these simulators are used routinely for student education. The workstation-based simulators are commercially driven and show a higher quality in terms of graphical quality and/or data content. Out of the studies, 1 showed a positive correlation between simulated content and real content (ie, content validity). There was a positive correlation between the outcome of simulator training and alternative training methods (ie, concordance validity), and a positive coherence between measured outcome and future professional attitude and performance (ie, predictive validity).

conclusionsIPSs can promote learning and consolidation of procedural knowledge. The use of immersive patient simulators is still marginal, and technical and educational approaches are heterogeneous. Academic-driven IPSs could possibly enhance the content quality, improve the validity level, and make this educational concept accessible to all medical students.

Indexed as

Patient SimulationAdultComputer SimulationEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFeasibility StudiesHumansLearningStudents, MedicalUser-Computer Interfaceimmersionimmersive patient simulatorsprocedural knowledgevalidityWeb-based learning

Identifiers

PMID25858862
PMCPMC4407019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.