Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40416184›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Efficacy and Students' Perceptions of Virtual Reality in Clinical Education: A Narrative Review.

Christopher Houser, Alexander Goodman, John Mack, Bradley Simon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Christopher HouserSimulation, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, USA.
Alexander GoodmanSimulation, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, USA.
John MackSimulation, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, USA.
Bradley SimonSimulation, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

augmented realityclinical decision-makingclinical judgmentclinical reasoning skillshealthcare educationmixed realitysimulation in medical educationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID40416184
PMCPMC12102637

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.