Trial reportVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Effects of short-course virtual reality or video-box training on basic laparoscopic skills and simulated surgical performance in veterinary students.
Trial report in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physical simulation models for veterinary surgical training: a systematic review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of short-course virtual reality or video-box training on basic laparoscopic skills and simulated surgical performance in veterinary students.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Trial
- Choose Your Own Adventure: Using Twine for Gamified Interactive Learning in Veterinary Anaesthesia.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare novices' performance on simulated laparoscopic tasks with a box trainer and virtual reality (VR) trainer before and after training on one system, and to compare performance between groups following training. STUDY
designRandomized, prospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Twelve veterinary students without prior hands-on laparoscopic experience were randomly assigned to the box or VR training group.
methodsPerformance of basic laparoscopic tasks on box and VR trainers and simulated surgical task were scored before and after completion of a designated training program. Scores for each task were compared within and between groups.
resultsThe box group's post-training scores were higher than pretraining scores for all box tasks. The VR group's post-training scores were higher than pretraining scores for most VR tasks. Median post-training scores were higher in the box group than the VR group for all box tasks. Median post-training scores were higher for the VR group than the box group only for VR intracorporeal suturing. Neither program led to a substantial improvement in simulated surgical task performance.
conclusionIn this study the box trainer seemed more effective than the VR trainer for training novices to perform most basic tasks. The lack of substantial improvement of simulated surgical task performance is likely related to study limitations including small sample size and short training timeline. IMPACT: Both training systems increased basic laparoscopic skills in novices. Laparoscopic simulation training may be applicable within veterinary school curricula. Additional studies are warranted to assess these systems with different tasks and trainee experience.
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.