VR-trained and bench-top-trained subjects showed no objective performance difference but a significant GRS difference on a final VR simulator assessment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Per the review's account of Middleton et al., objective motion-analysis performance did not differ between VR-trained and bench-top-trained subjects, but GRS scores did differ significantly. → Zhou Haixia 2022

Evidence¶

Zhou Haixia 2022¶

Zhou Haixia, Xian Chengyao, Zhang Kai-Jun, Yang Zhouwen, Li Wei, Tian Jing. (2022). The frequency of assessment tools in arthroscopic training: a systematic review. Annals of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2085317

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports, citing Middleton et al., a comparison of VR-trained versus bench-top-trained subjects on a final VR simulator wireless objective motion analysis assessment. Objective metrics showed no difference; GRS showed a significant difference.

"Middleton et al. [35] found that there was no difference in objective performance between virtual reality (VR) trained and bench-top trained subjects on the final VR simulator wireless objective motion analysis assessment, but a significant difference was seen in the GRS."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Completion time is the most common objective metric in arthroscopic skills training assessment, reported in 21 of 28 reviewed studies — a broader claim this one bears on
• Objective metrics are used more frequently in simulated environments, while GRS and checklists are used with actual patients — reports the opposite
• Virtual reality training improves economy-of-movement and error global rating scores compared with no additional training in one RCT — related
• No longitudinal studies or RCTs demonstrate that AI-acquired skills transfer to the operating room — related