Trial reportCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Immersive virtual reality versus high-fidelity simulation to teach anesthesiology nontechnical skills: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.
Trial report in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05041049 (Virtual Simulation Versus High-Fidelity Mannequin Simulation to Train Anesthesia Residents), which is not on this 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.
Virtual Simulation Versus High-Fidelity Mannequin Simulation to Train Anesthesia Residents
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVirtual reality (VR) may offer training advantages over mannequin-based high-fidelity simulation (HFS), but data are lacking. We sought to investigate whether VR is noninferior to HFS in teaching nontechnical skills to anesthesiology trainees.
methodsWe conducted a sequential randomized controlled noninferiority trial to compare two simulation crisis management scenarios in 31 anesthesiology trainees. Scenario #1 was delivered either as a VR or as HFS. After 3 weeks, all participants underwent scenario #2, delivered only as HFS. We set a noninferiority margin of 0.6 for the overall improvement on the Ottawa Global Rating Scale (O-GRS), a crisis resource management scale, in scenario #2 between the two groups. As secondary outcomes, we compared changes in the Anaesthetists' Non-technical Skills (ANTS) scale and the Managing Emergencies in Paediatric Anaesthesia Global Rating Scale (MEPA-GRS) between the two groups. We also evaluated the VR module using the VR Sickness Questionnaire (VRSQ), the System Usability Scale (SUS), the Technology Acceptance Model, and a feedback survey.
resultsDuring scenario #2, VR was noninferior to HFS regarding the overall O-GRS improvement (mean difference [upper bound 97.5% confidence interval], -0.4 [0.5]). Likewise, the VR and HFS groups showed no significant differences in ANTS and MEPA-GRS during scenario #2. In scenario #1, the VR and HFS groups' O-GRS, ANTS, and MEPA-GRS scores were comparable. The VR module reported a low VRSQ score (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 8.3 [4.2-15.8]), high-marginal SUS (median [IQR], 65 [62.5-80.0]), and feedback comparable to HFS.
conclusionsVirtual reality was noninferior to HFS in teaching anesthesiology nontechnical skills, and it was well tolerated and perceived. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT05041049 ); first submitted 10 September 2021.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42087045What 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.