↓ Skip to main content

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
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 simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008237.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rishad Khan, Joanne Plahouras, Bradley C Johnston, Michael A Scaffidi, Samir C Grover, Catharine M Walsh

Abstract

Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017. We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum. VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 203 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Unspecified 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Other 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 48%
Unspecified 31 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Psychology 13 6%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Other 34 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,625,351
of 13,216,344 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,344
of 10,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,380
of 269,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,216,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 269,745 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.