ArticlePloS one2025
Effects of virtual reality simulation on medical students' emotional and subjective experience compared to high-fidelity simulation in pediatrics clerkship.
Article in PloS one, 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
- Virtual reality versus theoretical training in CPR among adolescents: a randomized trial with a one-year longitudinal follow-up.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the educational impact of virtual reality (VR) simulation compared to high-fidelity (HF) simulation. Recently, VR simulation has been integrated into medical education, offering advantages such as cost- and space-efficiency, accessibility, and autonomy, enabling self-directed, repeated practice. Prior research comparing VR and HF simulations has focused primarily on knowledge acquisition, skill development, and learner satisfaction. Given that medical students often experience low confidence and high anxiety during clinical transitions, it is essential to examine the VR simulation's impact on these emotional factors and students' subjective experiences. This study investigated the effects of VR and HF simulations on anxiety, confidence, engagement, and perceived learning using multiple-item self-report scales. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests to compare the two simulation methods. The study included 40 fifth-year Korean medical students in a pediatric clerkship. Participants completed both VR and HF simulations, followed by a questionnaire assessing these variables. Results showed no statistically significant differences between VR and HF simulations across the measured domains. However, item-level analysis indicated slightly higher anxiety in VR simulation but greater perceived learning in cognitive domain, suggesting that VR may be more beneficial for cognitive learning compared to HF simulation. As VR simulation has only recently been incorporated into medical education, this study represents a first attempt to compare its impact with that of HF simulation focusing on subjective outcomes. Although no significant differences were found, the cost and space efficiency of VR simulation along with its support for autonomous learning underscore the need for further research, particularly on students' experiences, and learning objectives.
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.