Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33677745›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021

Stereoscopic virtual reality does not improve knowledge acquisition of congenital heart disease.

Neil Patel, Anthony Costa, Stephen P Sanders, David Ezon

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Extended reality in cardiovascular care: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Editor's Note to the July 2021 issue.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Neil PatelIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Children's Heart Center, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 1 Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1201, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Anthony CostaIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Children's Heart Center, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 1 Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1201, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Stephen P SandersCardiac Registry, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
David EzonIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Children's Heart Center, Mt. Sinai Hospital, 1 Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1201, New York, NY, 10029, USA. david.ezon@mssm.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Heart Defects, CongenitalVirtual RealityHumansLearningPredictive Value of TestsProspective Studies3D imagingCongenital heart diseaseEducationVirtual reality

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.