Immersive virtual reality versus high-fidelity simulation to teach anesthesiology nontechnical skills: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial
Primary result · Overall O-GRS improvementResult — go to the resultMean difference −0.4 97.5% CI upper bound 0.5Authors' conclusion
Virtual reality was noninferior to HFS in teaching anesthesiology nontechnical skills, and it was well tolerated and perceived.
Study context
- Population
- Anesthesiology trainees
- Participants
- 31 participants
- Comparison
- Virtual reality (VR) vs high-fidelity simulation (HFS)
- Primary endpoint
- Overall improvement on the Ottawa Global Rating Scale (O-GRS) in scenario #2 (delivered as HFS); noninferiority margin 0.6
- Follow-up
- Scenario #2, after 3 weeks
Methodological detailssequential, noninferiority
- Sequential
- Noninferiority
Primary result
Overall O-GRS improvement · scenario #2
Mean difference
−0.4
97.5% CI upper bound 0.5
VR vs HFS
mean difference −0.4 (97.5% CI upper bound 0.5)
Non-inferiority margin 0.6 as printed, not drawn
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
- System Usability Scale (SUS) of VR module
- 65 · median · IQR 62.5–80.0
Anaesthetists' Non-technical Skills (ANTS) and Managing Emergencies in Paediatric Anaesthesia Global Rating Scale (MEPA-GRS) · scenario #2
- No significant differences between VR and HFS
Ottawa Global Rating Scale (O-GRS), ANTS and MEPA-GRS scores · scenario #1
- Comparable in VR and HFS
System Usability Scale (SUS) of VR module
- High-marginal usability; feedback comparable to HFS
Safety
- VR Sickness Questionnaire (VRSQ) score
- 8.3 · median · IQR 4.2–15.8
VR Sickness Questionnaire (VRSQ) score
- Low VRSQ score
Original publication
Immersive virtual reality versus high-fidelity simulation to teach anesthesiology nontechnical skills: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Can J Anaesth. Published 5 May 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →