Trial reportThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Stereoscopic virtual reality does not improve knowledge acquisition of congenital heart disease.
Trial report in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Immersive virtual reality based on head-mounted display in medical education: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Virtual Reality and Cardiac Diseases: A Systematic Review of Applications and Effects.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Pooled it
- Incorporating virtual reality in undergraduate internal medicine education: a scoping review of current evidence and implementation strategies.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A preliminary comparison of bellringer performance across three visual modalities for the assessment of anatomy knowledge.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Advancements in 3D modeling technologies for congenital heart disease: integrating 3D printing, virtual reality, and holograms.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Extended reality in cardiovascular care: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Review
- Does stereoscopic immersive virtual reality have a significant impact on anatomy education? A literature review.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Review
- Comparing assisting technologies for proficiency in cardiac morphology: 3D printing and mixed reality versus CT slice images for morphological understanding of congenital heart defects by medical students.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Cardiac anatomic digital twins: findings from a single national centre.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Cardiovascular Disease: Beyond Lumen Assessment.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Low-Cost Models in Medical Education and Clinical Practice.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Comparative effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) vs 3D printed models of congenital heart disease in resident and nurse practitioner educational experience.3D printing in medicine · 2023Article
- Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Models in Pediatric Congenital Heart Disease.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Determinants of Learning Anatomy in an Immersive Virtual Reality Environment - A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- 3D Printed Models in Cardiovascular Disease: An Exciting Future to Deliver Personalized Medicine.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Editor's Note to the July 2021 issue.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in virtual reality have made it possible for clinicians and trainees to interact with 3D renderings of hearts with congenital heart disease in 3D stereoscopic vision. No study to date has assessed whether this technology improved instruction compared to standard 2D interfaces. The purpose of this study was to assess whether stereoscopic virtual reality improves congenital heart disease anatomy education. Subjects in a prospective, blinded, randomized trial completed a pre-test assessing factual and visuospatial knowledge of common atrioventricular canal and were randomized to an intervention or control group based on their score. The intervention group used a 3D virtual reality (VR) headset to visualize a lecture with 3D heart models while the control group used a desktop (DT) computer interface with the same models. Subjects took a post-test and provided subjective feedback. 51 subjects were enrolled, 24 in the VR group & 27 in the DT group. The median score difference for VR subjects was 12 (IQR 9-13.3), compared to 10 (IQR 7.5-12) in the DT group. No difference in score improvement was found (p = 0.11). VR subjects' impression of the ease of use of their interface was higher than DT subjects (median 8 vs 7, respectively, p = 0.01). VR subjects' impression of their understanding of the subject matter was higher than desktop subjects (median 7 vs 5, respectively, p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the knowledge acquisition observed between the stereoscopic virtual reality group and the monoscopic desktop-based group. Participants in virtual reality reported a better learning experience and self-assessment suggesting virtual reality may increase learner engagement in understanding congenital heart disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33677745What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.