ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
A Virtual Reality Anatomy Model of the Temporal Bone in ORL Residency Training-Gain or Gadget?
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of VR technology in standardized residency training for endoscopic procedures in otorhinolaryngology.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesVirtual reality (VR) appears to be a promising educational tool for otorhinolaryngology (ORL) residency training, as it allows for safe and effective practice immediate feedback and potential improvements in patient outcomes. Despite these advantages, VR has not yet been incorporated into residency training in ORL, which may be due to limited availability or validation and skepticism toward incorporation of new training methods. This study investigates whether a VR model of the temporal bone improves learning success for ORL residents in comparison to standard plastic models and whether it depends on surgeon's experience. We also included a subjective evaluation of the learning experience with both models.
methodsORL residents and specialists at 2 German university hospitals were tested on their knowledge of temporal bone anatomy after training with either VR or standard plastic models. In addition, we compared knowledge of the temporal bone anatomy before- and after-VR training. Lastly, a subjective survey on the benefits and limitations of VR was conducted to assess participants' views on this new technology.
resultsAbout 85% of the participants considered VR to be better than conventional models and agreed that VR was a useful tool for teaching complex anatomy. Objective evaluation showed significant improvement in knowledge after using VR (before/after comparison), especially in participants with a higher level of preexisting knowledge. Direct comparison to conventional plastic models showed no superiority of the VR model.
conclusionVR models in ORL are not only appealing and motivating for residents, but also objectively improve their anatomical knowledge, especially in advanced residency. In addition, VR-in contrast to the plastic model-offers opportunities for further development and optimization.
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.