Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs conventional training: Independent procedure completion
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training may leads to lower independent procedure completion compared with conventional patient‐based training (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs conventional patient‐based training Independent procedure completion · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training may leads to lower independent procedure completion compared with conventional patient‐based training (low certainty). Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.45 [0.27, 0.74] | Not reported | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.