Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Virtual reality-based training improves thoracentesis skills in medical interns: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThoracentesis is an essential clinical procedure, but its teaching is often limited by patient safety concerns and insufficient opportunities for repeated practice. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, repeatable simulation-based training; however, its effectiveness for thoracentesis has not been rigorously evaluated.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 20 medical interns were randomly assigned to either a VR-based training group (n = 10) or a traditional training control group (n = 10). The VR group received theoretical instruction plus VR simulation practice (1 h/day, 4 days/week for 3 weeks), while the control group received the same theoretical instruction plus traditional mannequin-based practice. All participants completed a 4-week training program. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, week 2, week 3, and week 4 using a standardized 300-point scoring rubric (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative components). Statistical comparisons were made using t-tests and chi-square tests. The primary outcome was the final thoracentesis procedural score at week 4.
resultsNo adverse events occurred. Baseline characteristics and initial assessment scores did not differ significantly between groups. At week 2, the VR group scored significantly lower than the control group (p < 0.05), reflecting an initial learning curve. However, at week 3 and week 4, the VR group significantly outperformed the control group (p < 0.01). At the final assessment, 80% (8/10) of the VR group achieved scores ≥ 270 points (excellent), compared to only 10% (1/10) of the control group.
conclusionVR-based training may improve thoracentesis procedural skills after an initial adaptation period. VR appears to be a useful adjunct to traditional medical education, though these findings are preliminary due to the small sample size.
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.