Comparison of a gamified versus standard virtual reality simulator to teach ultrasound-guided regional Anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial
Authors' conclusion
Gamification of an existing virtual reality simulator did not provide additional benefit compared to the original non-gamified simulator.
Study context
- Population
- Novices in ultrasound-guided RA, Liverpool, Campbelltown, and Fairfield Hospitals, Sydney, Australia
- Participants
- 60 participants
- Comparison
- Gamified vs Standard
- Primary endpoint
- Improvement in expert-assessed Global Rating Scale after training
- Follow-up
- After training
Methodological detailsprospective, single blinded, multicentre
- Prospective
- Single blinded
- Multicentre
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Global Rating Scale after training
- No difference in the Global Rating Scale between groups after adjustment for covariates (partial η2 = 0.05, p = 0.14)
- Adjusted for covariates
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Gamified | Standard | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| NASA-Task Load Index weighted scoresNo difference | −3.5 (SD 12.3) | −7.7 (SD 11.2) | P = 0.17 |
Gradient of the learning curves
- No difference (partial η2 = 0.04, p = 0.15)
Computer-generated performance scores
- No difference (partial η2 = 0.01, p = 0.51)
Cumulative error scores (CES)
- No difference (p = 0.89)
Participant questionnaire: VR simulation beneficial
- Large majority agreed or strongly agreed (7 out of 8 questions)
- range 72 to 92%
Original publication
Comparison of a gamified versus standard virtual reality simulator to teach ultrasound-guided regional Anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. Published 4 April 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →