Trial reportJournal of postgraduate medicine2026
Leveraging immersive technology with virtual emulation for training of nonmedico combatants: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of postgraduate medicine, 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
abstractTo explore the potential of virtual reality (VR) as a training tool for basic life support (BLS) and other emergency procedures to achieve higher levels of knowledge in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Sixty trainees, divided into two groups of thirty each, were trained first using conventional methods, followed by VR devices, and then crossed over in this randomized crossover trial. Data indicators included a pre-validated set of thirty-one mixed response questions administered via Google Forms and a checklist of twelve parameters. Assessment was performed using "Direct observation of procedural skills" at four time periods, at T0 (before training), T1 (post-completion of training with the conventional or immersive technique), T2 (post-completion of training with the immersive or conventional technique), and T3 (post-three months of last training with either the conventional or immersive technique). Inferential statistics were performed using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Intra-group comparison revealed a significant difference from T0 to T3 for all parameters in groups I and II, except for the "compression depth" parameter in group I. Inter-group comparison at T0 and T3 revealed no statistically significant difference between the two techniques. Overall satisfaction levels from T0 to T3 in both groups revealed an increasing learning preference for the VR method (46.6%-73.3% in group I and 50%-80% in group II). Immersive teaching-learning methods using VR provided a scalable and consistent learning experience, highlighting its utility for BLS training in remote or resource-constrained environments. Trainees' preferences and VR's ability to foster a desired teaching-learning environment are promising signs, warranting exploration of its long-term synergistic impact with other immersive teaching-learning methods.
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.