Evidence mapPaperPMID 25638167Full record

ReviewBMC medical education2015

Virtual patients--what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education.

Andrzej A Kononowicz, Nabil Zary, Samuel Edelbring, Janet Corral, Inga Hege

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Virtual patients in undergraduate psychiatry education: a systematic review and synthesis.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrzej A KononowiczDepartment of Learning, Informatics Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. andrzej.kononowicz@ki.se.
Nabil ZaryDepartment of Learning, Informatics Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Nabil.Zary@ki.se.
Samuel EdelbringDepartment of Learning, Informatics Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Samuel.Edelbring@ki.se.
Janet CorralSchool of Medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Denver, Colorado, USA. jktworek@gmail.com.
Inga HegeInstitut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin am Klinikum der Universität München, Ziemssenstr 1, 80336, München, Germany. inga.hege@med.uni-muenchen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe term "virtual patients" (VPs) has been used for many years in academic publications, but its meaning varies, leading to confusion. Our aim was to investigate and categorize the use of the term "virtual patient" and then classify its use in healthcare education.

methodsA literature review was conducted to determine all articles using the term "virtual patient" in the title or abstract. These articles were categorized into: Education, Clinical Procedures, Clinical Research and E-Health. All educational articles were further classified based on a framework published by Talbot et al. which was further developed using a deductive content analysis approach.

results536 articles published between 1991 and December 2013 were included in the study. From these, 330 were categorized as educational. Classifying these showed that 37% articles used VPs in the form of Interactive Patient Scenarios. VPs in form of High Fidelity Software Simulations (19%) and Virtual Standardized Patients (16%) were also frequent. Less frequent were other forms, such as VP Games. Analyzing the literature across time shows an overall trend towards the use of Interactive Patient Scenarios as the predominant form of VPs in healthcare education.

conclusionsThe main form of educational VPs in the literature are Interactive Patient Scenarios despite rapid technical advances that would support more complex applications. The adapted classification provides a valuable model for VP developers and researchers in healthcare education to more clearly communicate the type of VP they are addressing avoiding misunderstandings.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalSimulation TrainingComputer-Assisted InstructionHumansModels, AnatomicPatient-Specific ModelingUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID25638167
PMCPMC4318546

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.