Trial reportUpdates in surgery2025
The impact of immersive virtual reality training in thyroid surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06917755 (The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality Training in Thyroid Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality Training in Thyroid Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Simulation unlocked: transforming thyroid surgery training through high-fidelity and curriculum-based innovation-a systematic review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transforming thyroid disease education: AI and virtual technologies in residency training.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Article
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
Up to this date, there have been no reports on immersive virtual reality (IVR) training in thyroid surgery. The purpose of this blinded, randomized controlled trial was to determine the validity and impact of VR training in residents' education. Nineteen general surgery residents participated in the trial comparing IVR with traditional learning, utilizing a technical textbook as a control. A stratified randomization was used to secure balance in the distribution of residents according to their experience. The examined task pertained to the surgical steps from neck incision up to the placement of the continuous intraoperative neuromonitoring electrode and was evaluated by a blinded Fellow of the European Board of Surgery (FEBS) certified endocrine surgeon. Training superiority was assessed by the outcome measures of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, need for the main surgeon to intervene, verbal answers, and time to task completion. Participants completed questionnaires regarding face validity and perceived benefits of the educational process. Immersive VR group completed the task significantly faster (p = 0.012), at a mean time of 27.25 ± 3.8 vs 35.25 ± 6.5 min in the control group, and was superior in OSATS Overall score (p = 0.035), knowledge of instruments (p = 0.015) and flow of operation (p = 0.021) scores. In the dedicated questionnaire, the participants of the IVR group stated greater overall satisfaction of the educational process (p = 0.002), ease of use (p = 0.015), enjoyment (p < 0.001), repetitivity (0.001), and perceived improvement in surgical technique (0.021). The IVR group dedicated more time in training 39 ± 8.9 vs 27.5 ± 7.2 min (p = 0.014), and performed more repetitions of the educative module, 3.5 (2-5) vs 2 (1-3) (p = 0.003) than the control group. IVR training demonstrated improved outcomes in several translational technical skills acquisition over traditional learning, while yielding improved satisfaction and repetitivity for participants. Clinical trials registration number No: NCT06917755.
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.