Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37920857›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2023

Virtual reality in simulation-based emergency skills training: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis.

Jonathan R Abbas, Michael M H Chu, Ceyon Jeyarajah, Rachel Isba, Antony Payton, Brendan McGrath, Neil Tolley, Iain Bruce

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

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

Jonathan R AbbasThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Michael M H ChuManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Ceyon JeyarajahManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Rachel IsbaManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Antony PaytonThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Brendan McGrathManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Neil TolleyImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, The Bays, South Wharf Road, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom.
Iain BruceThe University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: An important role is predicted for virtual reality (VR) in the future of medical education. We performed a systematic review of the literature with a narrative synthesis, to examine the current evidence for VR in simulation-based emergency skills training. We broadly define emergency skills as any clinical skill used in the emergency care of patients across all clinical settings. Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data sources accessed during this study included: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, EMCARE, HMIC, BNI, PsychINFO, Medline, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, ERIC, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global. Cochrane's Rob 2 and ROBVIS tools were used during study quality assessment. No ethical review was required for this work. Results: Thirty-four articles published between 14th March 1998 and 1st March 2022 were included in this review. Studies were predominantly conducted in the USA and Europe and focussed on a variety of healthcare disciplines including medical, nursing, and allied health. VR education was delivered using head-mounted displays, Cave Automatic Virtual Environment systems, and bespoke setups. These systems delivered education in a variety of areas (emergency medicine, equipment training, obstetrics, and basic/advanced life support). Subjective potential advantages of this technology included realism, replayability, and time-effectiveness. Reports of adverse events were low in frequency across the included studies. Whilst clear educational benefit was generally noted, this was not reflected in changes to patient-based outcomes. Conclusion: There may be educational benefit to using VR in the context of simulation-based emergency skills training including knowledge gain and retention, skill performance, acceptability, usability, and validity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness, or direct improvement of patient or institutional outcomes, at this stage.

Indexed as

Emergency SimulationSimulationSystematic ReviewVirtual Reality

Identifiers

PMID37920857
PMCPMC10618508

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.