ArticleBMC medical education2025
Virtual reality vs. Manikin based training on emergency life saving basic rescue skills: a summative evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of repeated exposure to an identical multi-user virtual reality anaphylaxis scenario on paramedic trainee performance: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Simulation-Based Training in Emergency Skills: A Narrative Review Across Diverse Learner Populations.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Proficiency, Prospects, and Barriers Regarding Basic and Comprehensive Cardiovascular Life Support Skills Among Dental Professionals in India: A Mixed-Method Study.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ongoing professional development constitutes an essential and necessary process for healthcare practitioners, thereby ensuring their proficiency and relevance within the field. This quantitative summative program evaluation compared the effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) technology versus traditional manikin-based simulation in teaching basic rescue skills to first responders in Saudi Arabia. The study, conducted through the Academy of Sciences (AOS), addressed the growing need for innovative, engaging, and efficient healthcare education methods, particularly in the context of the post-COVID-19 landscape. The research evaluated the "Mongeth" VR program against conventional manikin simulation training, focusing on key rescue skills including CPR, AED usage, stop the bleed, and choking management. Participants (N = 98) were divided into VR (n = 58) and Manikin (n = 40) groups. Performance was assessed using standardized checklists for various rescue skills. Results demonstrated significantly higher performance scores in the VR group for AED usage (p < 0.001), adult choking management (p = 0.009), infant choking management (p = 0.009), and CPR (p < 0.001). Only the Stop the Bleed assessment showed no significant difference between groups (p = 0.096). Through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory, the study revealed that VR training enhanced learner engagement and self-efficacy while reducing time investment. The findings suggest that VR technology provides a more time-efficient and engaging alternative to traditional manikin-based training, with significant improvements in skills like CPR and choking management, particularly beneficial for busy healthcare professionals and community members requiring basic rescue skills certification. This research contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the integration of VR technology in healthcare education and has implications for improving population health through more accessible and effective training methodologies.
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.