ArticleScientific reports2025
Global trends and practice patterns in virtual reality simulation training for ophthalmic surgery: an international survey use of virtual reality simulation training around the world.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of extended reality (XR) simulation on ophthalmology training outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Construct validity of five phacoemulsification modules on the EyeSi surgical simulator: a cross-sectional study across three levels of surgical expertise.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Teaching ophthalmic microsurgical skills: conventional microscopy versus heads-up visualization.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- [Ophthalmological surgery simulation: an interim assessment after 3 years of Homburg Simulation Days].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Review
- Commentary: Impact of extended reality (XR) simulation on ophthalmology training outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comment on "Advances in the application of virtual reality technology in ophthalmic surgical skills training".International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Governing Self-Directed Adoption of New Ophthalmic Procedures.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This global survey investigated the use of virtual reality simulation (VRS) in ophthalmological surgery education. Questionnaires were distributed to authors of publications and directors of centers using VRS for surgical education in ophthalmology, then forwarded to residents and fellows of their team for completion. Out of 1845 questionnaires sent across 36 countries, 170 responses from 26 countries were analyzed, primarily from residents and fellows (75%). Mean access duration to VRS was 3.6 years, often at University Hospitals (43.5%). Notably, 12% of respondents traveled an average of 550 km to access VRS. The EyeSi VR Magic was the most frequently reported simulator (80%, mainly in Europe/North America), followed by HelpMeSee (48%, primarily in Europe/India/Madagascar). In 25 training centers across 12 countries, VRS was a mandatory prerequisite for patient access, functioning as a "surgical license". A larger number of training centers (49 from 19 countries) favored such mandatory training. Junior surgeons perceived a greater impact of VRS on their surgical practice compared to senior surgeons (p = 0.032). The study concludes that while VRS holds a significant role in postgraduate ophthalmic surgical training, its access is unequal worldwide. Broader implementation and standardized practices could improve and maintain high educational standards in this field.
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.