Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35510011›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

The Comparative Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Versus E-Module on the Training of Donning and Doffing Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized, Simulation-Based Educational Study.

Meryl B Kravitz, Nicholas B Dadario, Adeel Arif, Simon Bellido, Amber Arif, Oark Ahmed, Marc Gibber, Farrukh N Jafri

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Virtual Reality Technology in Otolaryngology Patient Care Management: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Future Prospects.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Meryl B KravitzOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Wakefield Campus, Bronx, USA.
Nicholas B DadarioMedicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA.
Adeel ArifSimulation Laboratory, White Plains Hospital, White Plains, USA.
Simon BellidoMedicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, USA.
Amber ArifSimulation Laboratory, White Plains Hospital, White Plains, USA.
Oark AhmedEmergency Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Wakefield Campus, Bronx, USA.
Marc GibberOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Wakefield Campus, Bronx, USA.
Farrukh N JafriEmergency Medicine, White Plains Hospital, White Plains, USA.
Johnson University · USMontefiore Medical Center · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · USWhite Plains Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Preventing errors in donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical for limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Virtual reality (VR) has demonstrated itself as an effective tool for asynchronous learning, but its use in PPE training has not been tested. The objective of this study was to compare donning and doffing performance between VR and e-module PPE training. Methods A prospective randomized open-blinded controlled trial was conducted to determine differences in donning and doffing performance after VR and e-module PPE training among medical staff and medical students at a single institution. The primary outcome was donning and doffing performance with real PPE, assessed using a 64-point checklist. The secondary outcome was participant preparedness and confidence level after training.  Results Fifty-four participants were randomized, mostly consisting of medical students (n=24 {44%}) or emergency medicine and otolaryngology residents (n=19 {35%}). The VR group (n=27 {50%}) performed better than the control in the overall PPE scores but this was not statistically significant (mean {SD}, VR: 55.4 {4.4} vs e-module: 53.3 {8.1}; p = 0.40). VR participants also reported higher levels of preparedness and confidence after training. Residents as a subgroup achieved the highest increases after VR training compared to their counterparts in the control training group (mean {SD}, VR: 55.6 {4.9} vs e-module 48.4 {5.5}, p = 0.009).  Conclusion In this randomized trial, VR training was found to be non-inferior to e-module for asynchronous PPE training. Our results suggest that in particular residents may benefit most from VR PPE training. Additionally, VR participants felt more confident and prepared to don and doff PPE after training compared to e-module participants. These findings are particularly relevant given the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Future studies need to focus on VR integration into residency curriculum and monitoring for long-term skill retention.

Indexed as

donning and doffingpersonal protective equipment (ppe)simulation in medical educationvirtual reality in medical educationvirtual reality simulation

Identifiers

PMID35510011
PMCPMC9060736
OpenAlexW4220800140

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.