Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40235926›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2025

Extended reality technologies in adult basic life support education: A scoping review.

Nino Fijačko, Špela Metličar, Boža Janžekovič, Benjamin S Abella, Vinay M Nadkarni, Todd P Chang, Robert Greif

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Nino FijačkoUniversity of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia.
Špela MetličarMedical Dispatch Centre Maribor, University Clinical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Boža JanžekovičUniversity of Maribor Library, Maribor, Slovenia.
Benjamin S AbellaIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY, USA.
Vinay M NadkarniChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, PA, USA.
Todd P ChangChildren's Hospital Los Angeles & Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, CA, USA.
Robert GreifUniversity of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: In recent years, virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies have gained increasing attention as innovative tools for education, including in the field of adult Basic Life Support (BLS). While existing reviews on this topic primarily focus on comparing VR/AR with other educational approaches, our research aimed to identify the VR/AR hardware and software applications assessed in published studies and their alignment with learning objectives in adult BLS education. Methods: We conducted a scoping literature review using the Population, Exposure, and Outcome (PEO) framework to analyse publications from 2018 to 2024. The review focused on the impact of VR/AR (exposure) on affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning outcomes (outcome) in adult BLS education among laypersons, healthcare professionals, pre-licensure students, and duty-to-respond laypersons (population). Results: From 1,282 database records and 54 alternative sources, 31 articles were selected for comprehensive analysis. Many of the studies (11/31; 36%) targeted pre-licensure students, such as nursing students, and laypersons (9/31; 20%), primarily high school students. Only one study focused on duty-to-respond laypersons (1/31; 3%). VR studies (24/31; 77%) were more common than AR studies (6/31; 19%), featuring a broad spectrum of ten VR headsets compared to just two types of AR headsets. Among the assessed software applications, twenty-one commercial programs were examined-sixteen designed for VR and five for AR. Most studies investigated affective outcomes (25/31; 81%), while behavioural outcomes were also commonly examined (22/31; 71%). In contrast, cognitive outcomes were explored in fewer studies (9/31; 29%). Conclusion: Our review identified several challenges in existing studies, including variability in software and hardware, diverse learning outcomes, and accessibility issues with extended reality (XR) technology. To maximize its effectiveness, XR should be aligned with specific learning objectives rather than adopted for its novelty. Prioritizing educational efficacy ensures that XR enhances learning by addressing precise gaps, ultimately improving the understanding and retention of resuscitation skills among both laypersons and healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Adult basic life supportApplicationsAugmented realityExtended realityHeadsetsImmersive technologySoftwareVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID40235926
PMCPMC11999490

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.