Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness of VR and traditional training in medical education for mass casualty management: an OSCE-based randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VR-based training compared to traditional lecture-based training for medical trainees in managing MCIs, specifically focusing on road traffic accidents. The primary assessment was performed using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and a theoretical knowledge test.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted with 46 medical trainees receiving emergency medicine training. Participants were randomly assigned to either a VR-based Training Group or a Lecture-based Training Group, with each group receiving a 2-hour training session on mass casualty management. The training effectiveness was evaluated through pre- and post-training knowledge tests, OSCE performance, and post-training feedback questionnaires. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the two groups.
resultsBaseline characteristics were well-matched between groups. The VR-based Training Group demonstrated significantly higher post-test scores (83.96 ± 13.11) compared to the Lecture-based Training Group (72.17 ± 20.89, p = 0.03). The learning gain was also significantly greater in the VR-based Training Group (40.26 ± 15.61) compared to the Lecture-based Training Group (28.26 ± 17.04, p = 0.02). OSCE results showed that the VR-based Training Group demonstrated better performance than the Lecture-based Training Group across all stations, with significant improvements in triage, injury assessment, and overall scene management. Additionally, feedback from the post-training questionnaire revealed that the VR-based Training Group reported greater confidence in performing critical tasks.
conclusionVR-based training may represent a more effective and engaging approach for teaching mass casualty management relative to traditional lecture-based methods. It may enhance both theoretical knowledge and practical skills, which could help better prepare medical trainees for high-pressure scenarios such as MCIs. As VR technology continues to evolve, its integration into medical education holds considerable potential for improving preparedness and clinical performance in emergency settings.
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.