Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41814296›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2026

A serious video game for teaching basic point-of-care echocardiography skills: a non-inferiority trial.

Josef Michael Lintschinger, Lena Reischmann, Daniel Alexander Klaus, Wolfgang Schaubmayr, Lorenz Kapral, Marc Dunst, Florian Kahlfuss, Alexandra Kaider, Gernot Gerger, Eva Schaden and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
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. It is linked to trial NCT06106178 (A Novel Serious Game as an Alternative for Teaching Basic Point-of-Care Transthoracic Echocardiography Skills), which is not on this 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.

NCT06106178 nacompletednot on this map

A Novel Serious Game as an Alternative for Teaching Basic Point-of-Care Transthoracic Echocardiography Skills

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical University of ViennaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled120ConditionsEchocardiography, Education, MedicalArmsSimulator for Basic Ultrasound Skills, Serious Video Game
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

11 authors.

Josef Michael LintschingerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-2773
Lena ReischmannDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5498-1347
Daniel Alexander KlausDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0933-9997
Wolfgang SchaubmayrDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2158-7966
Lorenz KapralDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3316-9024
Marc DunstDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6424-0214
Florian KahlfussDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6684-4964
Alexandra KaiderCenter for Medical Data Science, Institute of Clinical Biometrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Gernot GergerLudwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5189-3441
Eva SchadenDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7571-8680
Christina HafnerDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, Vienna, 1090, Austria. christina.hafner@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4075-1787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is expanding, but providing effective training remains challenging. Serious video games offer a promising, accessible, and cost-effective alternative. This study compares the non-inferiority of the serious game Underwater for learning basic echocardiography skills with that of traditional simulator-based training.

methodsThis prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted at the Medical University of Vienna. The participants were medical students, all of whom had a basic knowledge of anatomy but no prior experience in cardiac POCUS. Their performance in echocardiography examinations was evaluated using the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) score (4 to 20 points) and its subcategories (1 to 5 points). Following a two-hour workshop and a baseline assessment, the students participated in four training sessions over a two-week period. A final assessment was conducted afterward. A non-inferiority two-sample t-test with a one-sided significance level of 5% was applied to compare the primary outcome – the change in the total modified OSAUS score from baseline to final assessment – between the two groups.

resultsFrom October 3rd to May 5th, 2024, 97 out of 103 participants were analyzed, resulting in a dropout rate of 5.8%. The mean difference in OSAUS scores was − 1.24 ± 3.72 for the simulator and − 0.57 ± 3.51 for the video game group, demonstrating non-inferiority as hypothesized (p < 0.001). No significant differences in image optimization due to hand-eye coordination were observed between the two groups (-0.16 ± 1.40 for simulator vs. -0.23 ± 1.18 for video game, p = 0.780). 63.8% of the video game group and 78.0% of the simulator group found the randomized learning method to be helpful or very helpful.

conclusionSerious video game-based training was statistically non-inferior to mannequin-based simulation for basic cardiac POCUS hand-eye coordination skills. However, neither modality produced measurable improvement beyond the initial workshop, and both groups showed a small decline in performance over time. These findings indicate equivalence between modalities rather than effectiveness in this reinforcement setting and underscore the importance of longitudinal integration, distributed practice, and deliberate reinforcement when implementing innovative training approaches.

trial registrationThe trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06106178; 04/03/2023).

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEchocardiographyPoint-of-Care SystemsVideo GamesEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesSimulation TrainingSingle-Blind MethodStudents, Medicalechocardiographymedical educationpoint-of-care ultrasoundserious game

Identifiers

PMID41814296
PMCPMC13094009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.