Trial reportJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Assessing Immersive Virtual Reality as Learning Tool for Surgical Trainees.
Trial report in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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.
- Enhancing Therapist Training in the Delivery of Exposure Therapy for Individuals with Anxiety Disorders Using Virtual Reality Simulation: Randomized Feasibility Trial.JMIR medical education · 2026Trial
- Correspondence on "Assessing Immersive Virtual Reality as Learning Tool for Surgical Trainees".JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: As the availability of consumer-level virtual reality (VR) technology increases, an opportunity to enhance surgical education emerges. This study sought to evaluate the performance of immersive VR (iVR) against standard 2-dimensional (2D) training videos, vis-à-vis procedure knowledge, procedural confidence, and first-time hands-on performance, along with assessment of the user experience with iVR. Methods: Participants naïve to the procedure for insertion of a central venous catheter underwent baseline assessment of their knowledge and confidence related to that procedure. They were then randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 fashion, to 1 of 3 formats of a central line training video; standard 2D, desktop VR and iVR. Participants completed a postintervention knowledge and confidence assessment, as well as a live, hands-on simulation of the procedure. The simulation was scored by 2 blinded observers. Participants were also asked about their subjective experience with VR. Results: Forty-three participants completed the full study protocol. With regard to knowledge and confidence assessment, using an immersive format was deemed more engaging by all participants, and did not negatively impact knowledge acquisition or procedural confidence. There was a trend toward significantly higher performance on hands-on simulation for participants training using an iVR format ( Conclusions: iVR is a useful adjunct in procedural training. It is well-tolerated by users and more engaging than 2D video. It may improve hands-on skills acquisition without negatively impacting knowledge acquisition or artificially inflating procedural confidence. Larger scale studies are needed to assess this technology more thoroughly.
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.