Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35234652›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2022

Virtual Reality Simulation Training for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation After Cardiac Surgery: Face and Content Validity Study.

Amir H Sadeghi, Jette J Peek, Samuel A Max, Liselot L Smit, Bryan G Martina, Rodney A Rosalia, Wouter Bakhuis, Ad Jjc Bogers, Edris Af Mahtab

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07138599 (Training Healthcare Professionals in an Artificial Intelligence Based Virtual Reality Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Simulator Versus Conventional Video Training; a Multicentre Feasibility Study and Randomised Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT07138599 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Training Healthcare Professionals in an Artificial Intelligence Based Virtual Reality Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Simulator Versus Conventional Video Training; a Multicentre Feasibility Study and Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLeiden University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2024Enrolled42ConditionsECMO, Training Effectiveness, Education Nursing, Educational InterventionArmsVirtual Reality ECMO Simulation Training, Instructional Video of Certified Perfusionists on Performing a Circuit Check
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Amir H Sadeghi *Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-2341
Jette J Peek *Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8412-2851
Samuel A MaxDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8179-3924
Liselot L SmitDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4312-4495
Bryan G MartinaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4294-2616
Rodney A RosaliaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7763-092X
Wouter BakhuisDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3233-4182
Ad Jjc BogersDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-1998
Edris Af MahtabDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2647-5509
Erasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac arrest after cardiac surgery commonly has a reversible cause, where emergency resternotomy is often required for treatment, as recommended by international guidelines. We have developed a virtual reality (VR) simulation for training of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency resternotomy procedures after cardiac surgery, the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Virtual Reality Simulator (CPVR-sim). Two fictive clinical scenarios were used: one case of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) and a combined case of PEA and ventricular fibrillation. In this prospective study, we researched the face validity and content validity of the CPVR-sim.

objectiveWe designed a prospective study to assess the feasibility and to establish the face and content validity of two clinical scenarios (shockable and nonshockable cardiac arrest) of the CPVR-sim partly divided into a group of novices and experts in performing CPR and emergency resternotomies in patients after cardiac surgery.

methodsClinicians (staff cardiothoracic surgeons, physicians, surgical residents, nurse practitioners, and medical students) participated in this study and performed two different scenarios, either PEA or combined PEA and ventricular fibrillation. All participants (N=41) performed a simulation and completed the questionnaire rating the simulator's usefulness, satisfaction, ease of use, effectiveness, and immersiveness to assess face validity and content validity.

resultsResponses toward face validity and content validity were predominantly positive in both groups. Most participants in the PEA scenario (n=26, 87%) felt actively involved in the simulation, and 23 (77%) participants felt in charge of the situation. The participants thought it was easy to learn how to interact with the software (n=24, 80%) and thought that the software responded adequately (n=21, 70%). All 15 (100%) expert participants preferred VR training as an addition to conventional training. Moreover, 13 (87%) of the expert participants would recommend VR training to other colleagues, and 14 (93%) of the expert participants thought the CPVR-sim was a useful method to train for infrequent post-cardiac surgery emergencies requiring CPR. Additionally, 10 (91%) of the participants thought it was easy to move in the VR environment, and that the CPVR-sim responded adequately in this scenario.

conclusionsWe developed a proof-of-concept VR simulation for CPR training with two scenarios of a patient after cardiac surgery, which participants found was immersive and useful. By proving the face validity and content validity of the CPVR-sim, we present the first step toward a cardiothoracic surgery VR training platform.

Indexed as

cardiac surgerycardiopulmonary resuscitationdigital healthemergency resternotomymedical trainingserious gamessimulation trainingvirtual realityvirtual reality simulationvirtual training

Identifiers

PMID35234652
PMCPMC8928050
OpenAlexW4205414844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.