Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT06326450

Traditional In-Person Vs. Remote AR Clinical Simulation

This is a non-inferiority, international, controlled trial that aims to evaluate the progression of physicians and residents through an Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) clinical simulated scenario. The study's primary objective is to compare the performance outcomes between two groups: participants in the traditional in-person simulation and those immersed in the Augmented Reality (AR) scenario

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Educational Problems

Age range

18 year–99 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Lucile Parkard Children's Hospital

Stanford, California, 94304, United States

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Brazilian resident

Exclusion criteria

  • a history of severe motion sickness
  • currently have nausea
  • a history of seizures
  • wear corrective glasses.

Treatment and study plan

Augmented Reality simulation

Behavioral

Augmented simulation of medical crisis scenarios

In Person simulation

Behavioral

In Person simulation of medical crisis scenarios

Primary outcomes

  1. Evaluation of Technical Skill (TS) and Non Technical Skill (NTS) Performance

    Time frame: immediately after simulation

    Measured with Instrument for the evaluation of advanced life support performance. The instrument consists of 26 items, which are rated on a scale from +2 to -2. A total assessment score of performance is given based on a scale from 0 to 10 (0=poor, 10=excellent) at the end of the instrument.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Reassessment of Non Technical Skill (NTS) with Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

    Time frame: immediately after simulation

    Measured with individual Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS). The BARS scoring system uses four categories assessing situation awareness, decision-making, communication and teamwork. The score ranges from 1 and 9 (1 = poor and 9 = excellent)

  2. Evaluation of the AR system's usability

    Time frame: immediately after simulation

    Measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). The scale has 10 items. Scores ranges from 1-5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)

  3. Evaluation of the AR system's ergonomics

    Time frame: immediately after simulation

    Measured with the ISO 9241-400 Assessment of human-ergonomic factors. The scale has 6 items. Scores ranges from 1-5 (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Stanford University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Remote Augmented Reality Versus Traditional In-person Resuscitation Assessment: an International Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial

Acronym: AR Brazil

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2024
First posted
Mar 22, 2024
Registry last updated
Jul 23, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.