ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
A comparative study of the use of extended reality simulation in neonatal resuscitation training.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background360° video and virtual reality (VR) simulation may offer innovative opportunities as portable simulation-based technologies to enhance Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) training, updates, and refreshers. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of 360° video with VR simulation in NRP training and the effect on NRP learning outcomes.
methodsThirty (N = 30) NRP providers were randomly assigned to either VR simulation or 360° video study groups (n = 15 each) with pre and posttests of confidence, posttests of user satisfaction, usefulness, presence, and simulator sickness, and a performance demonstration of positive pressure ventilation (PPV) on a manikin-simulator. Participants were then exposed to the other condition and again post-tested.
resultsBoth systems were positively viewed. However, participants reported significantly higher perceptions of usefulness in enhancing learning and increased sense of presence with the VR simulation. VR simulation participants gained more confidence in certain NRP skills, such as proper mask placement (adjusted p-value 0.038) and newborn response evaluation (adjusted p-value 0.017). A blinded assessment of PPV skills showed participants exposed to VR performed significantly better in providing effective PPV (adjusted p-value 0.005).
conclusionsNRP providers found both systems useful; however, VR simulation was more helpful in improving learning performance and enhancing learning. Participants reported an increased feeling of presence and confidence in certain areas with VR and performed better on a crucial NRP skill, providing effective PPV. VR technologies may offer an alternative modality for increasing access to standardized and portable refresher learning opportunities on NRP.
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.