Trial reportJournal of medical radiation sciences2023
Comparison of virtual reality and physical simulation training in first-year radiography students in South America.
Trial report in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Scope of Virtual Reality Simulators in Radiology Education: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR medical education · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of immersive educational technologies in medical physics and radiation physics.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Augmented Reality-Based and Conventional Training Methods for Radiographic Positioning in Second-Year Radiologic Technology Students in Japan.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Trial
- Comparative Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality and Traditional Didactic Training on Radiation Safety in Medical Professionals: A Crossover Study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Trial
- Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Education: Architectural Autonomy and the Risk of Cognitive Surrender.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Utilization of extended-reality technologies in the field of medical radiation.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Review
- Research progress on the application of virtual simulation in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- AI-Enhanced Virtual Simulation as an Adjunct to Skills Laboratory and Clinical Training in Radiography Education: A Commentary from Somalia and Other Resource-Constrained Settin.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Augmented Reality in Radiography Education: Opportunities, Limitations and Lessons From Virtual Reality Research.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Comparing Clinical Preparedness of Newly Qualified Diagnostic Radiographers Trained With Immersive Virtual Reality vs. Traditional Simulation: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Students' Perceptions of Virtual Reality as Learning Tool in a Radiographic Technique Course.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Time for a simulation strategy?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the learning outcomes achieved by first-year radiography students educated with either virtual reality (VR) simulation training or physical simulation training. The implementation of VR has been proposed to enhance learning in radiography students and provide a more effective and efficient approach to simulation. However, the learning outcomes achieved with this approach have not been widely investigated.
methodsThrough stratified randomisation, 188 radiography students were allocated to one of two matched groups: a VR group (using Virtual Medical Coaching's Radiography simulation) and a physical simulation group (using Philips' X-ray equipment). Both groups were taught 31 radiography views over one 25-week semester. Both groups were assessed in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), using actors as patients in a physical X-ray environment. Assessment was conducted by assigning objective count scores for five assessment criteria.
resultsThe VR group achieved shorter OSCE duration and fewer errors in moving equipment and patient positioning: these results were statistically significant (P < 0.00). There was no significant difference in the frequency of errors in radiographic exposure setting between the VR and the physical simulation group. The current findings concur with the limited number of published studies concerning VR simulation in radiography.
conclusionsThe results of this study demonstrated superior effectiveness and efficiency in the VR group. This provides preliminary evidence to introduce VR simulation in the host institution and provide evidence that it may be possible to replace the use of physical simulation across other years of the degree. Further research investigating these possibilities is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.