Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effect of repeated exposure to an identical multi-user virtual reality anaphylaxis scenario on paramedic trainee performance: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
Immersive virtual reality (VR) may provide reproducible environments for training time-critical emergency workflows, but evidence in paramedic education remains limited. In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 125 German paramedic trainees participated in dyadic simulations after allocation to either one standardized multi-user VR anaphylaxis scenario (VR-C, n = 61) or repeated exposure to the identical scenario (VR-I, n = 64). The common assessment scenario was VR2. Scenario performance was assessed jointly for each dyad using a guideline-derived 62-item checklist and separate time metrics for correct working diagnosis and first intramuscular (IM) epinephrine administration. In VR2, the VR-I group achieved higher total scores than the VR-C group (42.6 vs. 31.1 of 62 points; mean difference 11.5, 95% CI, 9.8 to 13.3) and reached the working diagnosis (1.45 vs. 2.90 min) and first IM epinephrine administration (4.58 vs. 7.43 min) earlier. Knowledge test scores did not show corresponding between-group differences. VR-related symptoms were generally mild, and no simulation was discontinued. Repeated exposure to an identical VR anaphylaxis scenario was associated with improved subsequent scenario-specific, guideline-based performance within the VR environment. The findings support VR as a reproducible tool for deliberate rehearsal, but do not establish transfer to novel cases, real-world care, or superiority over conventional simulation. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) prior to journal submission. Data collection was completed at the time of registration. The registration includes the analysis plan and outcome definitions used for this manuscript. Analyses not specified in the registration are labeled exploratory. Registered at the OSF, registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V8XME, registration date: 6 February 2026.
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.