ArticleBMJ open2026
The impacts of high-fidelity and virtual reality simulation on the development of non-technical skills in healthcare students and professionals: protocol for a systematic review.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeficiencies in non-technical skills-including communication and leadership-are well-established causes of clinical errors in healthcare. Healthcare students and professionals increasingly use high-fidelity and virtual reality (VR) simulation to replicate clinical practice, through immersive and realistic scenarios in a risk-free teaching setting. However, there is no up-to-date, high-quality synthesis of the effects of high-fidelity and VR simulation on non-technical skills for healthcare students and professionals. A systematic review and meta-analysis of this literature is required to enhance the current knowledge.
methodsThis protocol has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will include randomised trials and other controlled studies that report differences in non-technical skills between high-fidelity and VR simulation. We will search MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, ERIC and CINAHL, from database inception. We will also search reference lists and contact experts to identify additional studies. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, and extract data. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer if necessary. For randomised trials, we will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2.0 (RoB2) tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. For non-randomised studies, we will use the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-1) assessment tool. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed. We will analyse continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (with 95% CIs) or standardised mean differences (with 95% CIs) if different measurement scales are used. We will use subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity. The overall certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for this study because no primary data have been collected. This review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences to inform ongoing educational practises. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251136479.
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.