ArticleATS scholar2024
Pediatric Critical Care Fellow Perception of Learning through Virtual Reality Bronchoscopy.
Article in ATS scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging traditional gaps in medical training with mixed reality: insights from bronchoscopy education-a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) simulators have revolutionized training in bronchoscopy, offering unrestricted availability in a low-stakes learning environment and frequent assessments represented by automatic scoring. The VR assessments can be used to monitor and support learners' progression. How trainees perceive these assessments needs to be clarified. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine what assessments learners select to document and receive feedback on and what influences their decisions. Methods: We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods strategy. All participants were pediatric critical care medicine trainees requiring competency in bronchoscopy skills. During independent simulation practice, we collected the number of learning-focused practice attempts (scores not recorded), assessment-focused practice (scores recorded and reviewed by the instructor for feedback), and the amount of time each attempt lasted. After simulation training, we conducted interviews to explore learners' perceptions of assessment. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of attempts for each practice type. The average time per learning-focused attempt was almost three times longer than the assessment-focused attempt (mean [standard deviation] 16 ± 1 min vs. 6 ± 3 min, respectively; Conclusion: During independent practice, learners took advantage of automatic assessments generated by the VR simulator to monitor their progression. However, the recording of scores from the simulation program to document learners' trajectory to a set goal was perceived as high stakes, discouraging learners from seeking supervisor feedback.
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.