Claims

VR instruction shows a statistically significant difference in nursing students' practical skills versus traditional methods, though the pooled estimate is small (SMD = 0.15)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2023 · 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 i0 Meta-analysis of four RCTs reported a statistically significant difference in practical skills favouring VR, with a small pooled effect (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51], P < 0.001). → Liu Kai 2023

Evidence

Liu Kai 2023

Liu Kai, Zhang Weiwei, Li Wei, Wang Ting, Zheng Yanxue. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04662-x

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Fixed-effects meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials assessing VR for practical skills; heterogeneity was low (P = 0.34, I2 = 10%). The pooled "SMD = 0.15" is below d = 0.2 despite the reported P < 0.001.

"The combined results showed a statistically significant difference compared to other traditional nursing teaching methods (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51], P < 0.001, Fig. 6)."

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.