Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37494112›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2023

Artificial Intelligence Versus Human-Controlled Doctor in Virtual Reality Simulation for Sepsis Team Training: Randomized Controlled Study.

Sok Ying Liaw, Jian Zhi Tan, Khairul Dzakirin Bin Rusli, Rabindra Ratan, Wentao Zhou, Siriwan Lim, Tang Ching Lau, Betsy Seah, Wei Ling Chua

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05953441 (Artificial Intelligence Versus Human-controlled Doctor in Virtual Reality Simulation for Sepsis Team Training), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05953441 nacompletednot on this map

Artificial Intelligence Versus Human-controlled Doctor in Virtual Reality Simulation for Sepsis Team Training: Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University of SingaporeRan2022 to 2022Enrolled65ConditionsSepsisArmsAI-powered doctor, Human-controlled doctor avatar
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Sok Ying LiawAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8326-4049
Jian Zhi TanAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5073-4972
Khairul Dzakirin Bin RusliAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8096-0006
Rabindra RatanDepartment of Media & Information, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7611-8046
Wentao ZhouAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9806-2637
Siriwan LimAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0138-5881
Tang Ching LauDepartment of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1810-0926
Betsy SeahAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-6048-2190
Wei Ling ChuaAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4870-2728
National University of Singapore · SGMichigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterprofessional communication is needed to enhance the early recognition and management of patients with sepsis. Preparing medical and nursing students using virtual reality simulation has been shown to be an effective learning approach for sepsis team training. However, its scalability is constrained by unequal cohort sizes between medical and nursing students. An artificial intelligence (AI) medical team member can be implemented in a virtual reality simulation to engage nursing students in sepsis team training.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an AI-powered doctor versus a human-controlled doctor in training nursing students for sepsis care and interprofessional communication.

methodsA randomized controlled trial study was conducted with 64 nursing students who were randomly assigned to undertake sepsis team training with an AI-powered doctor (AI-powered group) or with medical students using virtual reality simulation (human-controlled group). Participants from both groups were tested on their sepsis and communication performance through simulation-based assessments (posttest). Participants' sepsis knowledge and self-efficacy in interprofessional communication were also evaluated before and after the study interventions.

resultsA total of 32 nursing students from each group completed the simulation-based assessment, sepsis and communication knowledge test, and self-efficacy questionnaire. Compared with the baseline scores, both the AI-powered and human-controlled groups demonstrated significant improvements in communication knowledge (P=.001) and self-efficacy in interprofessional communication (P<.001) in posttest scores. For sepsis care knowledge, a significant improvement in sepsis care knowledge from the baseline was observed in the AI-powered group (P<.001) but not in the human-controlled group (P=.16). Although no significant differences were found in sepsis care performance between the groups (AI-powered group: mean 13.63, SD 4.23, vs human-controlled group: mean 12.75, SD 3.85, P=.39), the AI-powered group (mean 9.06, SD 1.78) had statistically significantly higher sepsis posttest knowledge scores (P=.009) than the human-controlled group (mean 7.75, SD 2.08). No significant differences were found in interprofessional communication performance between the 2 groups (AI-powered group: mean 29.34, SD 8.37, vs human-controlled group: mean 27.06, SD 5.69, P=.21). However, the human-controlled group (mean 69.6, SD 14.4) reported a significantly higher level of self-efficacy in interprofessional communication (P=.008) than the AI-powered group (mean 60.1, SD 13.3).

conclusionsOur study suggested that AI-powered doctors are not inferior to human-controlled virtual reality simulations with respect to sepsis care and interprofessional communication performance, which supports the viability of implementing AI-powered doctors to achieve scalability in sepsis team training. Our findings also suggested that future innovations should focus on the sociability of AI-powered doctors to enhance users' interprofessional communication training. Perhaps in the nearer term, future studies should examine how to best blend AI-powered training with human-controlled virtual reality simulation to optimize clinical performance in sepsis care and interprofessional communication.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05953441; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05953441.

Indexed as

SepsisVirtual RealityArtificial IntelligenceCommunicationComputer SimulationHumansInterprofessional RelationsPatient Care TeamAIartificial intelligencehealth care educationinterprofessional communicationinterprofessional educationmedical educationnursing educationnursing studentsepsis caresimulationteam trainingvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID37494112
PMCPMC10413090
OpenAlexW4378904414

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.