Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
Virtual Clinical Simulation for Training Amongst Undergraduate Medical Students: A Pilot Randomised Trial
Felipe T Martinez1,2, Juan Pablo Soto3, Daniela Valenzuela3
1Clinical Research, Concentra Educación e Investigación Biomédica, Viña del Mar, CHL.
Background:
Clinical virtual simulators are promising new technologies that might facilitate teaching clinical skills.
Objective:
This study aimed to assess whether a virtual reality simulator might facilitate learning and improve adherence to current clinical guidelines.
Methodology:
A double-masked randomised trial was undertaken among fourth-year medical students at Universidad Andres Bello, Chile. Participants were randomised to a clinical virtual simulator (Body Interact®, Body Interact Inc., Austin, TX) or a small-group discussion session on the management of myocardial infarction. Main outcomes included performance in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and adherence to clinical recommendations. Analyses were undertaken under the intention to treat principle by an independent statistician.
Results:
Fifty students volunteered to participate. Most were female (30 students, 58.8%) and had a mean age of 23.0±2.7 years. Thirty-two participants (62.8%) had used virtual reality platforms before. Students allocated to the simulator showed better OSCE scores (mean difference: 2.8 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.2 to +8.7 points, p=0.14) and were faster to implement diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, but not in a statistically significant way.
Discussion:
Academic performance was slightly improved by the use the simulator, although the overall effect was smaller than expected.
Conclusion:
This study examined the influence of a clinical virtual simulator on the academic performance and guideline adherence of undergraduate medical students, with small group discussions as a point of comparison. The findings revealed that there were no statistically significant distinctions between the two methods, potentially attributed to the selection of the comparator and the relatively brief intervention period.

