ReviewJournal of medical extended reality2025
Extended Reality-A Narrative Review of Current State and Best Use in Health Care Simulation.
Review in Journal of medical extended reality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of the extended reality technologies in simulation-based health professions education: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Computer-Based Simulation Technologies in Pediatric Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review of Applications and Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integration of Artificial Intelligence Into Extended Reality Debriefing in Healthcare Simulation: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extended reality (XR) is rapidly gaining ground in the field of health care simulation. Much remains to be explored in terms of how best to make use of this simulation modality while at the same time maintaining adherence to health care simulation standards of best practice. The effect of XR on learner cognitive load is controversial. On the contrary, XR is considered facilitative towards reducing cognitive load by enhancing audio-visual learning. However, technical adaptation requires adequate exposure to the device, in addition to which cybersickness can be a challenging side effect for users. Therefore, it is essential that prior to using XR simulations in health care education, both faculty implementers and learners should be provided with thorough training on how to use the technology effectively. Learning should be scaffolded by gradually increasing the complexity of XR simulations as learners become more proficient. Adapting simulation design principles for technology-enriched learning environments may help reduce cognitive load as well as positively affect performance. Novice learners benefit when they learn supporting information separately from complex procedural content. Extraneous cognitive load can also be minimized by avoiding redundant expressions of content. Future research should focus on improving XR-related hardware and software and assessing the effectiveness of XR as a simulation modality.
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.