Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Sep 15;21(1):493.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02920-4.

Virtual reality-based neurological examination teaching tool(VRNET) versus standardized patient in teaching neurological examinations for the medical students: a randomized, single-blind study

Sang Gil Han  1 , Young Dae Kim  2 , Tae Young Kong  1 , Junho Cho  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Virtual reality-based neurological examination teaching tool(VRNET) versus standardized patient in teaching neurological examinations for the medical students: a randomized, single-blind study

Sang Gil Han et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: The conventional methods for teaching neurological examination with real patients to medical students have some limitations if the patient with the symptom or disease is not available. Therefore, we developed a Virtual Reality-based Neurological Examination Teaching Tool (VRNET) and evaluated its usefulness in in teaching neurological examinations for the medical students.

Methods: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind study, we recruited 98 medical students and divided them into two groups: 1) A standardized patient(SP) group that received the clinical performance examination utilizing standard patients complaining of dizziness was provided neurological findings using conventional method such as verbal description, photographs, and video clips; 2) A SP with VRNET group that was provided the neurological findings using the newly developed tool. Among the 98 students, 3 did not agree to participate, and 95 were enrolled in this study. The SP group comprised 39 students and the SP with VRNET group had 56 students.

Results: There were no statistical differences in VRNET's realness and student satisfaction between the SP and SP with VRNET groups. However, a statistically significant difference was found in the Neurologic Physical Exam (NPE) score (p = 0.043); the SP with VRNET group had higher NPE scores (3.81 ± 0.92) than the SP group (3.40 ± 1.01).

Conclusions: VRNET is useful in teaching senior (graduating) medical students with SP with a neurologic problem.

Keywords: Medical education; Neurological examination; Standardized patient; Virtual reality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any relevant financial information or potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Instructor mode of VRNET. The instructor can select pupil light reflex, extraocular movement (EOM), corneal reflex, nystagmus, facial palsy and sensory change, and hearing to adjust abnormal symptoms. The figure depicts the setting of the direction and severity of the left eye EOM disorder. (This figure is a screenshot of VRNET and the person in this figure created a virtual patient)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Student mode of VRNET. The student selects a voice indicator from the box to the left of the patient in order to instruct the patient and selects a neurological test tool, such as a cotton swab, a tuning fork, or a penlight, from the right box. The figure shows a pupil light reflex examination of a patient with an abnormal enlarged left pupil. (This figure is a screenshot of VRNET and the person in this figure created a virtual patient)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Actual training scene. The student is practicing using VRNET next to a standardized patient(this photo was taken with the prior consent of the student and standardized patient)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Flow chart of the study protocol
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mantovani F, Castelnuovo G, Gaggioli A, Riva G. Virtual reality training for health-care professionals. CyberPsychol Behav. 2003;6(4):389–395. doi: 10.1089/109493103322278772. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vozenilek J, Huff JS, Reznek M, Gordon JA. See one, do one, teach one: advanced technology in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(11):1149–1154. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.08.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. May W, Park JH, Lee JP. A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996-2005. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):487–492. doi: 10.1080/01421590802530898. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taylor DC, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide no. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–e1572. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J. 2019;6(3):181–185. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2019-0036. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources