Claims

IVR simulation does not significantly improve nursing students' skill performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Meta-analysis of 7 RCTs found no significant effect of IVR on skill performance (Hedges' g = 0.49, 95% CI −0.24–1.22), with very high heterogeneity. → Li Xia 2026

Evidence

Li Xia 2026

Li Xia, Hu Yanling, Peng Hanmei, Luo Shiqi, Yang Chunsong, Luo Biru, Wan Xingli, Li Yuan, Laredo-Aguilera Jose Alberto. (2026). Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation on Nursing Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Nursing Management. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/4686851

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of 7 RCTs assessing skill performance in nursing students. The wide confidence interval included both no effect and a large effect; I² = 94.4%; Egger's test p = 0.352. GRADE certainty for skill performance was rated very low.

"The random‐effects meta‐analysis revealed that IVR did not significantly improve nursing students’ skill performance. The pooled point estimate corresponded to a nominal medium effect size (Hedges’ g = 0.49), but the 95% CI was wide and included both no effect and a large effect (95% CI: −0.24–1.22). Very high heterogeneity was observed across studies (I 2 = 94.4%)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.