ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy and Students' Perceptions of Virtual Reality in Clinical Education: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation of Video-Based Instruction and a 360° Virtual Reality Module on Personal Protective Equipment Competency and Infection Prevention in Healthcare Settings: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Holopatient technology in nursing education: a cross-sectional analysis of student and faculty perceptions.BMC nursing · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) technology has evolved significantly since its inception in the 1950s, now offering advanced, affordable, and immersive experiences that have made it increasingly popular in healthcare education. This narrative review assesses the effectiveness of VR in teaching clinical knowledge, specifically non-technical clinical skills such as clinical reasoning and decision-making, compared to traditional learning methods. The review also evaluates students' perceptions of VR as a learning tool. Our search identified 13 relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials, literature reviews, and a meta-analysis, which predominantly targeted medical, nursing, and physiotherapy students. The results demonstrate that VR often outperforms traditional lecture-based and text-based models in enhancing clinical knowledge and non-technical skills. However, some studies reported mixed or negative outcomes, particularly in areas like patient history-taking and critical thinking skills. Students generally expressed positive attitudes toward VR, citing higher satisfaction, engagement, and motivation compared to traditional learning methods. Despite these promising findings, the review highlights the need for more targeted research, especially in comparing VR with traditional simulation models and evaluating its effectiveness across different healthcare professions. In conclusion, while VR shows great potential in enhancing clinical education, further research is needed to confirm its efficacy and determine its optimal role in medical training.
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.