Observational studyBMJ open2026
Can immersive virtual reality assess hypothermia resuscitation decision-making? A cross-sectional study in a civil-military disaster management context.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an immersive virtual reality (VR) scenario for assessing decision-making in accidental hypothermia resuscitation within a civil-military disaster-management exercise, and to explore neurophysiological signals as hypothesis-generating correlates of decision-making.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingA multinational civil-military disaster-management exercise in Bulgaria (September 2025).
participantsConvenience sample of first responders who completed the VR scenario and post-experience questionnaire (n=62; mean age 30.6 years (SD 7.8); 59/62 male (95.2%) and 3/62 female (4.8%); 43/62 civilian (69.4%) and 19/62 military (30.6%)).
interventionsParticipants completed an interactive 360° immersive VR scenario with multiple-choice decision points covering key steps in accidental hypothermia management. A subsample underwent exploratory neurophysiological monitoring (electroencephalogram (EEG)/ECG) during the scenario. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was decision accuracy across scenario decision points. Secondary outcomes included perceived usefulness, ease of use, presence and physical discomfort. Exploratory outcomes (subsample) included EEG-derived engagement index and frontal alpha asymmetry.
resultsSixty-two participants completed the simulation. Perceived usefulness and ease of use reached the highest median score (7.0 (IQR 6-7.0)), with >95% agreement across items. Decision accuracy across decision points ranged from 37.5% to 85.7%, with lower accuracy in hypothermia-specific algorithm steps compared with general resuscitation actions. In a very small exploratory EEG/ECG subsample, illustrative case-level, event-locked individual traces suggested possible differences preceding incorrect responses (hypothesis-generating only).
conclusionsImmersive VR was feasible and well accepted for assessing hypothermia resuscitation decision-making in a civil-military exercise. Observed performance highlighted hypothermia-specific decision gaps. Controlled and longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate learning gain and training effectiveness.
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.