Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32326948›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

Is individual practice in an immersive and interactive virtual reality application non-inferior to practicing with traditional equipment in learning systematic clinical observation? A randomized controlled trial.

Helen Berg, Aslak Steinsbekk

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Helen BergDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. helen.berg@ntnu.no.
Aslak SteinsbekkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 260370
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to investigate if individual self-practice of the ABCDE approach (Airways, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure) in an immersive and interactive virtual reality (VR) application gave non-inferior learning outcome compared to using traditional equipment (TP) in first year medical and nursing students.

methodsA non-inferior parallel group randomized controlled trial. The study was linked to a regular teaching program conducted in August and September 2019. All students participated in a 15-min ABCDE introduction session, before they self-practiced the ABCDE approach for 20 min in either a fully immersive and interactive VR application using hand controllers with some haptic feedback (Individual VR) or with blood pressure gauge, ear-thermometer and oximeter (Individual TP). The primary outcome was the number of students who documented all the eight predefined observations in the ABCDE approach in the correct order in a practical test on an advanced simulator manikin with a time limit of 5 min, done immediately after the self-practice. The predefined one-sided non-inferiority limit was 13% points.

resultsOf all eligible students, 84% participated in the study and randomly allocated to VR (n = 149) or TP (n = 140). The primary outcome showed non-inferiority of the VR application with 24.8% in individual VR doing all observations in correct order compared to 27.1% TP (absolute difference 2.3% points, one sided 95% CI 2.3 to 10.8). The secondary outcomes were similar between the groups, but more students in VR reported liking the way they practiced (absolute difference 46% points, 95% CI 36.5 to 56.6) and that it was a good way to learn (36.9% points, 95% CI 26.8 to 47). VR also scored high on the System Usability Scale (mean difference 6.4% points, 95% CI 2.8-10.1).

conclusionsIndividual self-practicing the ABCDE approach in VR was non-inferior to individual self-practicing with traditional equipment.

Indexed as

Monitoring, PhysiologicObservationTeachingVirtual RealityAdultFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalStudents, NursingYoung AdultABCDE approachClinical skillsImmersiveIndividual self-practiceInteractiveInteractive virtual realitySimulationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID32326948
PMCPMC7181571

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.