Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Virtual reality or personal computer-based gynecologic pelvic exam simulation: medical student preferences.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundGynecologic pelvic exams (GPEs) are a required proficiency for healthcare trainees, yet practice opportunities are limited. The Virtual Approach to Gynecology Project aims to supplement traditional learning with a virtual-based GPE module. This study compares trainee experiences using the immersive virtual reality (VR) version to an equivalent non-immersive personal computer (PC) simulation.
methodsFive groups of 3-5 preclinical medical students were randomized to complete one version of the GPE simulation (either the PC or VR), followed by written feedback and a structured focus group. Each group then completed the other version, after which a second written feedback form was completed, and a final focus group conducted. Focus group comments were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded. Thematic analysis was performed on coded comments and analysis of written feedback compared Likert-scale responses of VR and PC versions.
resultsTwenty-two individual students enrolled and were assigned to one of five groups. Focus group discussions yielded a total of 138 responses that underwent thematic analysis. VR was unanimously preferred to the PC version, scoring significantly higher Likert-scale responses on ease of use, realism, improved comfort, and confidence. The following 3 themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) realism and immersiveness, (2) ease of use, and (3) enjoyment. Compared to PC, VR was found to be more realistic and enjoyable, though both versions had some reported difficulty regarding use.
conclusionThe immersive VR-based simulation provided a more realistic and enjoyable experience for the GPE simulation compared to the PC-based simulation and was unanimously preferred.
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.