ArticleRespiration; international review of thoracic diseases2026
Virtual Reality versus Augmented Reality Bronchoscopy Simulation-Based Training: A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Navigation Performance and Cognitive Load in Novice Bronchoscopists.
Article in Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFlexible bronchoscopy is an essential procedural skill to master for the management of respiratory illness. Bronchoscopy simulators hasten the attainment of competencies. Whether augmented reality (AR) offers advantages over virtual reality (VR) during training is unknown. We tested this premise in novice bronchoscopists by assessing end-of-training performance after mastery learning on either simulator.
methodsThis is a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised control trial. Thirty bronchoscopists were randomised to a VR (n = 15) or AR (n = 15) simulator training group. Each had up to 2 h to practice full (diagnostic completeness [DC]/18 segments), orderly (structured progress [SP]), and timely (procedure time [PT]) segmental navigation using pre-defined mastery learning protocols. Experts assessed recorded complete test bronchoscopies on 2 different endobronchial airway training models (BronchoBoy®, Koken). Cognitive load during training was compared.
resultsThe VR group outperformed the AR group in the first test (BronchoBoy), marginally for DC (median difference, p value) (1, p = 0.0022) but not SP (1, 0.6887), PT (46 s, 0.8119), or mean intersegmental time (MIT) (2.15 s, 0.9760). In the second test (Koken), the AR group (trained on the Koken) was faster PT (-48 s, 0.0377) but no different from VR in DC, SP, or MIT. The VR group trained for more time than AR (90+/-30 min vs. 80+/-30 min, p = 0.0468). The VR group had a significantly lower mental demand in training than AR (median difference, p value) (15 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.023) but higher physical demand score (35 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.004).
conclusionTraining by novices on VR or AR bronchoscopy simulators led to thorough, timely, and moderately ordered test segmental navigation. VR training portended high and slightly more thorough navigation, with lower mental but higher physical demand and longer time-spent-training. Further comparative studies of VR and AR bronchoscopic skills training should seek preferential and predictive factors for optimal clinical proficiency.
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.