Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33526042›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021

Virtual reality as a teaching method for resuscitation training in undergraduate first year medical students: a randomized controlled trial.

Malte Issleib, Alina Kromer, Hans O Pinnschmidt, Christoph Süss-Havemann, Jens C Kubitz

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Virtual reality exoskeleton for post-partum uterine tamponade balloon training: Impact on learning and operator satisfaction.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Applications and Challenges of Virtual Reality in Medical Sciences Education: A Systematic Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Malte Issleib *Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martini-Str. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. missleib@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3573-8999
Alina Kromer *Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martini-Str. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Hans O PinnschmidtDepartment of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martini-Str. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Christoph Süss-HavemannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martini-Str. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens C KubitzDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martini-Str. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual reality is an innovative technology for medical education associated with high empirical realism. Therefore, this study compares a conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training with a Virtual Reality (VR) training aiming to demonstrate: (a) non-inferiority of the VR intervention in respect of no flow time and (b) superiority in respect of subjective learning gain.

methodsIn this controlled randomized study first year, undergraduate students were allocated in the intervention group and the control group. Fifty-six participants were randomized to the intervention group and 104 participants to the control group. The intervention group received an individual 35-min VR Basic Life Support (BLS) course and a basic skill training. The control group took part in a "classic" BLS-course with a seminar and a basic skill training. The groups were compared in respect of no flow time in a final 3-min BLS examination (primary outcome) and their learning gain (secondary outcome) assessed with a comparative self-assessment (CSA) using a questionnaire at the beginning and the end of the course. Data analysis was performed with a general linear fixed effects model.

resultsThe no flow time was significantly shorter in the control group (Mean values: control group 82 s vs. intervention group 93 s; p = 0.000). In the CSA participants of the intervention group had a higher learning gain in 6 out of 11 items of the questionnaire (p < 0.05).

conclusionA "classic" BLS-course with a seminar and training seems superior to VR in teaching technical skills. However, overall learning gain was higher with VR. Future BLS course-formats should consider the integration of VR technique into the classic CPR training or vice versa, to use the advantage of both teaching techniques.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdolescentAdultCardiopulmonary ResuscitationEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalYoung AdultBasic life support trainingMedical schoolResuscitationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33526042
PMCPMC7851931
OpenAlexW3128753197

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.