Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39044186›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Reviewing the current state of virtual reality integration in medical education - a scoping review.

Marvin Mergen, Norbert Graf, Marcel Meyerheim

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Mixed Reality in Clinical Settings for Pediatric Patients and Their Families: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Marvin MergenDepartment of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Saarland University, Building 9, Kirrberger Strasse 100, 66421, Homburg, Germany. marvin.mergen@uks.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3891-580X
Norbert GrafDepartment of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Saarland University, Building 9, Kirrberger Strasse 100, 66421, Homburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2248-323X
Marcel MeyerheimDepartment of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Saarland University, Building 9, Kirrberger Strasse 100, 66421, Homburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9294-9445

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 16DHBKI080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn medical education, new technologies like Virtual Reality (VR) are increasingly integrated to enhance digital learning. Originally used to train surgical procedures, now use cases also cover emergency scenarios and non-technical skills like clinical decision-making. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of VR in medical education, including requirements, advantages, disadvantages, as well as evaluation methods and respective study results to establish a foundation for future VR integration into medical curricula.

methodsThis review follows the updated JBI methodology for scoping reviews and adheres to the respective PRISMA extension. We included reviews in English or German language from 2012 to March 2022 that examine the use of VR in education for medical and nursing students, registered nurses, and qualified physicians. Data extraction focused on medical specialties, subjects, curricula, technical/didactic requirements, evaluation methods and study outcomes as well as advantages and disadvantages of VR.

resultsA total of 763 records were identified. After eligibility assessment, 69 studies were included. Nearly half of them were published between 2021 and 2022, predominantly from high-income countries. Most reviews focused on surgical training in laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures (43.5%) and included studies with qualified physicians as participants (43.5%). Technical, didactic and organisational requirements were highlighted and evaluations covering performance time and quality, skills acquisition and validity, often showed positive outcomes. Accessibility, repeatability, cost-effectiveness, and improved skill development were reported as advantages, while financial challenges, technical limitations, lack of scientific evidence, and potential user discomfort were cited as disadvantages. DISCUSSION: Despite a high potential of VR in medical education, there are mandatory requirements for its integration into medical curricula addressing challenges related to finances, technical limitations, and didactic aspects. The reported lack of standardised and validated guidelines for evaluating VR training must be overcome to enable high-quality evidence for VR usage in medical education. Interdisciplinary teams of software developers, AI experts, designers, medical didactics experts and end users are required to design useful VR courses. Technical issues and compromised realism can be mitigated by further technological advancements.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, MedicalVirtual RealityClinical CompetenceHumansDigitalisationMedical EducationMedical SchoolMedical trainingVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID39044186
PMCPMC11267750

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.