Background: Extended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness... Show moreBackground: Extended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence. Objective: Our aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education. Methods: We conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results: Of the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants' attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%). Conclusions: RCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally. Show less
Significance Statement This randomized trial demonstrates the safety and efficacy of conversion from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)? to belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression in renal... Show moreSignificance Statement This randomized trial demonstrates the safety and efficacy of conversion from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)? to belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients 6?60 months post-transplant. Patients converted to belatacept showed sustained improvement in renal function associated with an acceptable safety profile consistent with prior experience and a smaller treatment difference in acute rejection postconversion compared with that observed in earlier studies in de novo renal allograft recipients. These results favor the use of belatacept as an alternative to continued long-term CNI-based maintenance immunosuppression, which is particularly relevant for CNI-intolerant patients, including those who experience nephrotoxicity. These data help inform clinical practice guidelines regarding the conversion of such patients to an alternative immunosuppressive drug regimen.Background Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are standard of care after kidney transplantation, but they are associated with nephrotoxicity and reduced long-term graft survival. Belatacept, a selective T cell costimulation blocker, is approved for the prophylaxis of kidney transplant rejection. This phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of conversion from CNI-based to belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients.Methods Stable adult kidney transplant recipients 6?60 months post-transplantation under CNI-based immunosuppression were randomized (1:1) to switch to belatacept or continue treatment with their established CNI. The primary end point was the percentage of patients surviving with a functioning graft at 24 months.Results Overall, 446 renal transplant recipients were randomized to belatacept conversion (n=223) or CNI continuation (n=223). The 24-month rates of survival with graft function were 98% and 97% in the belatacept and CNI groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.8; 95.1% CI, ?2.1 to 3.7). In the belatacept conversion versus CNI continuation groups, 8% versus 4% of patients experienced biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), respectively, and 1% versus 7% developed de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSAs), respectively. The 24-month eGFR was higher with belatacept (55.5 versus 48.5 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) with CNI). Both groups had similar rates of serious adverse events, infections, and discontinuations, with no unexpected adverse events. One patient in the belatacept group had post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.Conclusions Switching stable renal transplant recipients from CNI-based to belatacept-based immunosuppression was associated with a similar rate of death or graft loss, improved renal function, and a numerically higher BPAR rate but a lower incidence of dnDSA. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: A Study in Maintenance Kidney Transplant Recipients Following Conversion to Nulojix? (Belatacept)-Based, NCT01820572 Show less
