Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40120464›Full record

Trial reportClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025

Virtual reality and traditional training in surgical instrumentation: A non-inferiority comparative study.

Cristina Pires Camargo, Sergio Henrique Bastos Damous, Jocielle Santos de Miranda, Patricia Zen Tempski, Francisco de Salles Collet E Silva, José Maria Soares, Edivaldo Massazo Utiyama, Rolf Gemperli

Abstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Cristina Pires CamargoMicrosurgery and Plastic Surgery Laboratory (LIM-04), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: cristinacamargo@usp.br.
Sergio Henrique Bastos DamousGeneral Surgery and Trauma Division, Surgery Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Jocielle Santos de MirandaGeneral Surgery and Trauma Division, Surgery Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Patricia Zen TempskiCenter for Development of Medical Education, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Francisco de Salles Collet E SilvaGeneral Surgery and Trauma Division, Surgery Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
José Maria SoaresDepartment of Endocrine Gynecology and Menopause, Discipline of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Laboratório de Investigação em Ginecologia Molecular e Estrutural (LIM-58), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo SP, Brazil.
Edivaldo Massazo UtiyamaGeneral Surgery and Trauma Division, Surgery Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rolf GemperliMicrosurgery and Plastic Surgery Laboratory (LIM-04), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMedical education is undergoing a profound transformation due to technological advancements. Integrating cutting-edge tools like virtual environments and computer-based simulators heralds a new era in teaching methodologies. The objective of the study is to analyze the performance and satisfaction levels of residents undergoing basic surgical skills training using virtual reality.

methodsThe authors recruited residents from the first year in general surgery and allocated them randomly into three groups: a) Text; b) Practice and c) Virtual reality. Initially, the residents completed a pretest for an evaluation and then they were trained according to the group they were assigned to. All the residents performed a 30-minute training session. After that, they took a posttest. Both tests were composed of multiple-choice ten questions. At the end of this study, the authors determined the score by calculating the delta of the performance (Δ = posttest -pretest). After the training, all the participants filled in a five-question satisfaction questionnaire.

resultsRegarding the difference between the pretest and post-test, there was no difference between groups. Only one participant (1/8) showed nausea in the virtual groups. The recommendation and satisfaction after the task were higher in the Virtual reality group compared to the Text group. There was an association between satisfaction after the exercises (VR) and recommendation score.

conclusionsVirtual reality is safe and non-inferior to traditional surgical instrumentation training. This tool might be a practical and attractive alternative to the traditional instrumentation classes.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceGeneral SurgeryInternship and ResidencySimulation TrainingSurgical InstrumentsVirtual RealityAdultEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesEducationSurgical instrumentationSurgical trainingTechnologyVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID40120464
PMCPMC11981744

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.