Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38486132›Full record

ArticleSurgical innovation2024

Findings Favor Haptics Feedback in Virtual Simulation Surgical Education: An Updated Systematic and Scoping Review.

Sayed Azher, Aralia Mills, Jinzhi He, Taliah Hyjazie, Junko Tokuno, Andrea Quaiattini, Jason M Harley

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07609238 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Training Programs Designed to Improve Awareness, Attitudes, and Empathy Toward Individuals With Disabilities in Nursing Students), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-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.

NCT07609238 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Training Programs Designed to Improve Awareness, Attitudes, and Empathy Toward Individuals With Disabilities in Nursing Students

TypeinterventionalSponsorBaskent UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled66ConditionsSimulation Training, Students, Nursing, Attitude, Empathy SkillsArmsDisability Awareness Education, Virtual Reality Group, Standart Patient Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sayed AzherDepartment of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8840-1981
Aralia MillsSimulation, Affect, Innovation, Learning, and Surgery (SAILS) Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jinzhi HeSimulation, Affect, Innovation, Learning, and Surgery (SAILS) Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Taliah HyjazieSimulation, Affect, Innovation, Learning, and Surgery (SAILS) Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Junko TokunoSteinberg Centre for Simulation and Interactive Learning, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Andrea QuaiattiniInstitute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jason M HarleyDepartment of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2061-9519
McGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual simulations (VSs) enhance clinical competencies and skills. However, a previous systematic review of 9 RCT studies highlighted a paucity of literature on the effects of haptic feedback in surgical VSs. An updated systematic and scoping review was conducted to encompass more studies and a broader range of study methodologies.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted on July 31, 2023, in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane. English language studies comparing haptic vs non-haptic conditions and using VSs were included. Studies were evaluated and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

resultsOut of 2782 initial studies, 51 were included in the review. Most studies used RCT (21) or crossover (23) methodologies with medical residents, students, and attending physicians. Most used post-intervention metrics, while some used pre- and post-intervention metrics. Overall, 34 performance results from studies favored haptics, 3 favored non-haptics, and the rest showed mixed or equal results.

conclusionThis updated review highlights the diverse application of haptic technology in surgical VSs. Haptics generally enhances performance, complements traditional teaching methods, and offers personalized learning with adequate simulator validation. However, a sparsity of orienting to the simulator, pre-/post-study designs, and small sample sizes poses concerns with the validity of the results. We underscore the urgent need for standardized protocols, large-scale studies, and nuanced understanding of haptic feedback integration. We also accentuate the significance of simulator validation, personalized learning potential, and the need for researcher, educator, and manufacturer collaboration. This review is a guidepost for navigating the complexities and advancements in haptic-enhanced surgical VSs.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceSimulation TrainingFeedbackGeneral SurgeryHumansVirtual Realityforce feedbackhapticsimulationsurgerytrainingvirtual simulation

Identifiers

PMID38486132
PMCPMC11047018
OpenAlexW4392859419

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.