Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689025›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2026

Virtual reality training on lumbar puncture quality (VIRTUAL): a randomized controlled trial.

Xinyang Zou, Lina Chen, Yisen Shi, Kaitai Yang, Xinyan Chen, Aiying Zeng, Xiaolei Peng, Ke Chen, Xuanjie Chen, Zeqiang Yang and 11 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Xinyang Zou *Department of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Lina Chen *Department of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Yisen Shi *Department of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Kaitai Yang *Department of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Xinyan Chen *Department of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Aiying Zeng *Clinical Skills Teaching Center, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Xiaolei PengClinical Skills Teaching Center, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Ke ChenDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Xuanjie ChenDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Zeqiang YangDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Xuan LinDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Jiaqi SuDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Lijun WanDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Shenglong WuDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Weiru WangDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Qihong ZhongDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Jiayi ZhengDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.
Fabin LinDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China. fabinlin@hotmail.com.
Qinyong YeDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China. unionqyye@163.com.
Guoen CaiDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Neuroscience, Institute of Clinical Neurology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China. cgessmu@fjmu.edu.cn.
VIRTUAL Investigators

Funding

Fujian Province Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology 2019Y9070National Natural Science Foundation of China 82271270National Natural Science Foundation of China U23A20423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsidering the limited data on the feasibility of virtual reality (VR) in lumbar puncture (LP) training, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VR combined with conventional training (instructional videos and high-fidelity LP simulation) on LP proficiency.

methodsIn this single-blind randomized controlled trial, 88 medical students were randomly assigned to the purely conventional training (CT) group (undergoing 30 min of conventional training) and the virtual reality training (VRT) group (undergoing 20 min of conventional training and 10 min of VR training). After the 30-min intervention, all participants were asked to perform the entire LP procedure independently to check for their proficiency level. After 3 months, they will be reconvened for a follow-up to check their retention of LP skills. The 12 key points of lumbar puncture (maximum total score: 12) were used as the primary assessment parameters.

resultsThe proficiency in LP performance was not different between the CT and VRT groups (8.29 vs. 7.79, respectively, P > 0.05). Each training modality demonstrated specific strengths at the procedural step level. The participants in CT group displayed higher success rates in preparation, administration of anesthesia, and completion of the procedure, whereas those in the VRT group performed better in measuring cerebrospinal fluid pressure. Meanwhile, the performance of LP in the two groups exhibited no significant differences in the follow-up after 3 months (CT group vs VRT group: 5.04 vs 4.74, P > 0.05). Furthermore, the participants who introduced VR into their training demonstrated a higher level of interest in clinical skills (CT group vs. VRT group: 60.5% vs 75.6%) and satisfaction with their training (CT group vs VRT group: 41.9% vs 51.2%).

conclusionsTraining mode combined with VR and conventional training was comparable with CT training in terms of overall proficiency of LP performance. Nonetheless, it was associated with higher self-reported interest and satisfaction among medical students and could be used as a supplement to CT. The efficacy of VR training can be enhanced by further optimizing its programming settings.

trial registrationThe study was approved by the China Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200057109) on 28 February 2022 before initiation.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceSpinal PunctureVirtual RealityAdultFemaleHumansMaleSingle-Blind MethodStudents, MedicalYoung AdultLumbar punctureMedical educationSimulationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID41689025
PMCPMC13014742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.