ArticleCureus2026
Haptic Training Simulator Use in Emergency Procedure Education.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough simulation-based education is integral to emergency procedure training, computer monitor screen-based simulation (SBS) alone cannot develop the requisite feel and psychomotor skills. Haptic training simulations providing force feedback via a multi-degree-of-freedom stylus may improve this issue, offering tactile realism without the resource burdens of high-fidelity mannequins and consumable task trainers. This study compared user experience and skill acquisition between traditional task-trainer-based simulation and SBS with haptic feedback.
methodsWe conducted a crossover study with 22 emergency medicine learners (residents and medical students) to compare haptic-augmented SBS (3D Systems Touch™ with custom Unity™ software; 3D Systems, Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA; Unity Technologies, San Francisco, CA, USA) versus traditional physical task trainers for lateral canthotomy (LC) and needle decompression (ND) procedures. Participants completed pre- and post-knowledge tests (five multiple-choice items per procedure) and post-simulation Likert surveys (1-5 scale) assessing realism, usability, and educational value. Knowledge changes were analyzed using the paired-samples proportion, Newcombe's method, and McNemar's test; Likert responses were summarized using median and interquartile range.
resultsMean knowledge scores for LC increased by 20.9% (p < 0.001), and haptic simulation achieved median Likert ratings of 4-5 for realism, ease of use, and desirability. ND knowledge improved in certain topics (needle gauge choice, p = 0.007) with median Likert ratings of 4-5 for utility and integration potential.
conclusionsHaptic simulation represents a feasible and effective adjunct for procedural training in emergency medicine. For complex, dexterity-intensive tasks, such as LC, haptic augmented simulators offer educational outcomes comparable to those of traditional physical models while providing significant logistical and cost advantages. Conversely, traditional trainers remain at least as effective for less complex procedures such as ND. These preliminary findings support the integration of haptics into medical curricula, although future research must focus on long-term skill retention and the optimization of simulator design across a broader range of clinical interventions.
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.