Cited by 7Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

Effectiveness of AI- and VR-based simulation with traditional teaching in healthcare education: a network meta-analysis

Wang, Miaoli, Xiao, Lin, Jiao, Jingjing, Sun, Mei, Ni, Zhao, Xiao, Jinnan, Tan, Minghui, Zhang, Haojie +2 more·2026·Nurse Education Today

Abstract

Aims (i) To summarize the application scenarios and teaching models of AI and VR in healthcare education. (ii) To compare teaching outcomes between AI, VR, and traditional methods. (iii) To identify the relative advantages of AI and VR in different outcomes.Design A network meta-analysis.Data sources We systematically searched ten databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, CINAHL, Association for Computing Machinery, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, and China Computer Federation, to identify randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies.Methods Educational effects of various teaching methods were compared through network meta-analysis by estimating standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool.Results This study included 54 studies. The network meta-analysis results showed that in nursing education, VR, compared to traditional teaching, improved students' satisfaction (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.80), knowledge (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.90), and practical skills (SMD = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.55), while AI only enhanced knowledge (SMD = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.62). There was no significant difference in the indirect comparison between AI and VR. In clinical medicine, both VR and AI improved knowledge (VR: SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.19; AI: SMD = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.51) and practical skills (VR: SMD = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.63; AI: SMD = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.66) compared to traditional teaching, but no significant difference was found in the indirect comparison between AI and VR.Conclusions Future research should focus on direct comparisons between AI and VR, assess their long-term educational effects, and design integrated teaching models that harness the strengths of both technologies to inform evidence-based improvements in instructional practice.Registration (PROSPERO): CRD42024605827.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107008

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A network meta-analysis in nursing education revealed that AI simulation was highly effective in enhancing knowledge acquisition (standardized mean difference=1.11).

    “Furthermore, a network meta-analysis in nursing education revealed that while AI simulation was highly effective in enhancing knowledge acquisition (standardized mean difference=1.11), its effect on cultivating practical skills was relatively limited [61].”
  • AI simulation's effect on cultivating practical skills was relatively limited.

    “Furthermore, a network meta-analysis in nursing education revealed that while AI simulation was highly effective in enhancing knowledge acquisition (standardized mean difference=1.11), its effect on cultivating practical skills was relatively limited [61].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, M., Xiao, L., Jiao, J., Sun, M., Ni, Z., Xiao, J., Tan, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W., & Ding, J.
Affiliations
  • Central South University (CN)
  • Southern Medical University (CN)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Liu, Wei
  • Ding, Jinfeng
Venue
Nurse Education Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-05
Volume
160
Pages
107008
ISSN
0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7125612633
Cited by
6
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Central South University (2025ZZTS0864)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, virtual reality, simulation-based training, healthcare education, nursing education, clinical medicine education, conventional instruction comparison, student satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, practical skills, teaching methods comparison, teaching model, integrated teaching model, educational technology effectiveness
MeSH terms
Simulation Training, Virtual Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Education, Nursing, Humans, Teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review