ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluating the impact of video-only, video with group discussion, and collaborative 360VR on abdominal examination training for first-semester medical students and medicine with industrial specialization.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmersive technologies are increasingly explored in medical education to supplement traditional teaching methods. Instructional videos provide consistent demonstrations but often lack opportunities for interaction and reflection. We compared video-only instruction, video instruction combined with facilitated peer discussion, and a collaborative 360° virtual reality (VR) co-viewing environment for teaching abdominal examination to first-semester medical students.
methodsIn this three-arm comparative pilot study (non-randomized), 30 students were allocated to video alone (n = 11), video plus discussion (n = 10), or collaborative 360° VR (n = 9). All groups viewed the same professionally produced 10-minute instructional video. The discussion group then engaged in a 20-minute guided conversation; VR participants co-viewed the same video in a shared 360° environment with teleportation between camera angles and annotation tools. Performance was assessed using a 16-item checklist scored by blinded examiners (0-16 points). Learner perceptions were measured using the UEQ-S (8 items; six scales) plus open-ended questions. Between-group differences in checklist scores were tested with two-sided Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsMedian checklist scores were 14.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 13.0-15.0) for video, 16.0 (IQR 14.5-16.0) for video + discussion, and 12.0 (IQR 12.0-13.0) for VR. Pairwise Mann-Whitney tests showed that video + discussion outperformed VR (U = 82.5, p = 0.0019) and video outperformed VR (U = 79.5, p = 0.0228), while video did not differ significantly from video + discussion (U = 32.0, p = 0.101). Questionnaires indicated high satisfaction with video and discussion. VR participants reported strong engagement and motivation but lower ratings for navigation and self-perceived preparedness.
conclusionSupplementing instructional videos with structured peer discussion produced the highest immediate competency, supporting social-constructivist approaches to skills training. Collaborative VR did not improve short-term performance but enhanced engagement and may serve as an adjunct when combined with clear learning objectives and user training. Larger studies are needed to explore long-term retention and optimize integration of immersive technologies into medical curricula.
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.