↓ Skip to main content

Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Virtual reality training for improving the skills needed for performing surgery of the ear, nose or throat
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010198.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patorn Piromchai, Alex Avery, Malinee Laopaiboon, Gregor Kennedy, Stephen O'Leary

Abstract

Virtual reality simulation uses computer-generated imagery to present a simulated training environment for learners. This review seeks to examine whether there is evidence to support the introduction of virtual reality surgical simulation into ear, nose and throat surgical training programmes. 1. To assess whether surgeons undertaking virtual reality simulation-based training achieve surgical ('patient') outcomes that are at least as good as, or better than, those achieved through conventional training methods.2. To assess whether there is evidence from either the operating theatre, or from controlled (simulation centre-based) environments, that virtual reality-based surgical training leads to surgical skills that are comparable to, or better than, those achieved through conventional training. The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; ERIC; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 27 July 2015. We included all randomised controlled trials and controlled trials comparing virtual reality training and any other method of training in ear, nose or throat surgery. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We evaluated both technical and non-technical aspects of skill competency. We included nine studies involving 210 participants. Out of these, four studies (involving 61 residents) assessed technical skills in the operating theatre (primary outcomes). Five studies (comprising 149 residents and medical students) assessed technical skills in controlled environments (secondary outcomes). The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the GRADE quality of evidence for most outcomes across studies as 'low'. Operating theatre environment (primary outcomes) In the operating theatre, there were no studies that examined two of three primary outcomes: real world patient outcomes and acquisition of non-technical skills. The third primary outcome (technical skills in the operating theatre) was evaluated in two studies comparing virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery training with conventional training. In one study, psychomotor skill (which relates to operative technique or the physical co-ordination associated with instrument handling) was assessed on a 10-point scale. A second study evaluated the procedural outcome of time-on-task. The virtual reality group performance was significantly better, with a better psychomotor score (mean difference (MD) 1.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.81; 10-point scale) and a shorter time taken to complete the operation (MD -5.50 minutes, 95% CI -9.97 to -1.03). Controlled training environments (secondary outcomes) In a controlled environment five studies evaluated the technical skills of surgical trainees (one study) and medical students (three studies). One study was excluded from the analysis. Surgical trainees: One study (80 participants) evaluated the technical performance of surgical trainees during temporal bone surgery, where the outcome was the quality of the final dissection. There was no difference in the end-product scores between virtual reality and cadaveric temporal bone training. Medical students: Two other studies (40 participants) evaluated technical skills achieved by medical students in the temporal bone laboratory. Learners' knowledge of the flow of the operative procedure (procedural score) was better after virtual reality than conventional training (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.79). There was also a significant difference in end-product score between the virtual reality and conventional training groups (SMD 2.60, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.49). One study (17 participants) revealed that medical students acquired anatomical knowledge (on a scale of 0 to 10) better during virtual reality than during conventional training (MD 4.3, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.55). No studies in a controlled training environment assessed non-technical skills. There is limited evidence to support the inclusion of virtual reality surgical simulation into surgical training programmes, on the basis that it can allow trainees to develop technical skills that are at least as good as those achieved through conventional training. Further investigations are required to determine whether virtual reality training is associated with better real world outcomes for patients and the development of non-technical skills. Virtual reality simulation may be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 13%
Student > Master 37 13%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 9%
Other 78 27%
Unknown 52 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Computer Science 18 6%
Engineering 15 5%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 49 17%
Unknown 70 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,786,811
of 16,037,879 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,533
of 11,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,648
of 242,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,037,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.