ArticleJournal of medical extended reality
Comparing 360° Video via Head-Mounted Display and Computer-Based Displays for Physical Examination Training: A Randomized Pilot Study with Medical Students.
Article in Journal of medical extended reality. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To test whether immersion leads to better learning outcomes compared to non-immersive displays in medical education, this pilot study investigates the impact of presenting 360° video in head-mounted display (HMD) headsets versus desktop computer-based two-dimensional (2D) displays on physical examination performance. Nineteen medical students were randomized into either a 360° video via HMD or a computer-based 2D training intervention group to learn the presentation of a physical examination. Prior research has found that a learner's spatial ability predicted training outcomes in immersive environments, such that those with lower spatial ability benefited from immersive training more than those with higher spatial ability. To account for baseline spatial reasoning ability that might contribute to learner differences, all participants completed a measure of spatial reasoning, the paper folding test (PFT), prior to training. Following the training intervention, participants were evaluated on their ability to perform the instructed physical examination steps. There was no significant difference in performance between the 360° video and computer-based training groups (
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.