Paper detail

Initial validation of a virtual-reality learning environment for prostate biopsies: realism matters!

: Introduction-objectives: A virtual-reality learning environment dedicated to prostate biopsies was designed to overcome the limitations of current classical teaching methods. The aim of this study was to validate reliability, face, content and construct of the simulator. Materials and methods: The simulator is composed of a) a laptop computer, b) a haptic device with a stylus that mimics the ultrasound probe, c) a clinical case database including three dimensional (3D) ultrasound volumes and patient data and d) a learning environment with a set of progressive exercises including a randomized 12-core biopsy procedure. Both visual (3D biopsy mapping) and numerical (score) feedback are given to the user. The simulator evaluation was conducted in an academic urology department on 7 experts and 14 novices who each performed a virtual biopsy procedure and completed a face and content validity questionnaire. Results: The overall realism of the biopsy procedure was rated at a median of 9/10 by non-experts (7.1-9.8). Experts rated the usefulness of the simulator for the initial training of urologists at 8.2/10 (7.9-8.3), but reported the range of motion and force feedback as significantly less realistic than novices (p=0.01 and 0.03 respectively). Pearson&#39;s r correlation coefficient between correctly placed biopsies on the right and left side of the prostate for each user was 0.79 (p<0.001). The 7 experts had a median score of 64% (59-73), and the 14 novices a median score of 52% (43-67), without reaching statistical significance (p=0,19). Conclusion: The newly designed virtual reality learning environment proved its versatility and its reliability, face and content were validated. Demonstrating the construct validity will require improvements to the realism and scoring system used.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.