ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Feasibility Evaluation of a Standalone Virtual Reality System for Neonatal Resuscitation Training.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maintaining competency in neonatal resuscitation requires repeated practice. However, equipment costs, space, and instructor availability constrain mannequin-based simulation. Standalone virtual reality (VR) training may improve access. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of a standalone VR-based neonatal resuscitation training application (NCPR-VR) focused on positive-pressure ventilation, among already-certified perinatal healthcare professionals. This single-arm exploratory feasibility study involved 32 already-certified perinatal healthcare professionals (11 physicians, 14 nurses, and 7 midwives). Feasibility and acceptability were assessed by session completion, self-reported usefulness/recommendation, System Usability Scale (SUS), User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), and Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ). Safety was monitored by Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) and adverse event reporting. Analyses were limited to descriptive statistics. All 32 participants completed the VR session without adverse event-induced discontinuation (completion rate, 100%). Median perceived usefulness and willingness to recommend the application were both 5 (IQR, 4-5) on a 5-point Likert scale. The median SUS score was 65.0 (IQR, 55.0-73.1), indicating moderate usability. UEQ subscales showed favorable ratings for attractiveness, stimulation, and novelty. IPQ involvement was unsatisfactory and experienced realism only satisfactory; presence and spatial presence were acceptable. Simulator sickness was low (median SSQ, 1.9); three participants reported mild symptoms resolving within 10 min. No serious adverse events occurred. NCPR-VR was feasible and acceptable among already-certified providers, with full session completion and no serious adverse events. Involvement and experienced realism require improvement. Trial registration: UMIN000058975 (University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry; registered September 6, 2025).
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.