Search

Timothy Deer,1,* Robert Heros,2,* Edward Tavel,3 Sayed Wahezi,4 Robert Funk,5 Patrick Buchanan,6 Anne Christopher,7 Jacqueline Weisbein,8 Christopher Gilligan,9 Denis Patterson,10 Ajay Antony,11 Mohab Ibrahim,12 Nathan Miller,13 Keith Scarfo,14 Gayle Johnson,15 Thadchaigeni Panchalingam,15 Udoka Okaro,15 James Yue16 1Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 2Pain Management, Spinal Diagnostics, Tualatin, OR, USA; 3Pain Management, Clinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; 4Pain Management, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 5Pain Management, Indiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 6Pain Management, Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA; 7Pain Management, Saint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO, USA; 8Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 9Pain Management, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 10Pain Management, Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV, USA; 11Pain Management, the Orthopedic Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA; 12Pain Management, Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA, USA; 13Pain Management, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA; 14Pain Management, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA; 15Neuromodulation, Abbott Labs, Austin, TX, USA; 16Orthopaedic spine Surgery, Connecticut Orthopedics, Hamden, CT, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Timothy Deer, Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA, Tel +1 304 347 – 6120, Fax +1 304 347 – 6126, Email doctdeer@aol.comAim: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a more effective, long-term treatment compared to conventional medical management (CMM). The DISTINCT study enrolled and randomized chronic LBP patients with no indicati

Ryan S D’Souza,1 Yeng F Her,1 Nasir Hussain,2 Jay Karri,3 Michael E Schatman,4 Aaron K Calodney,5 Christopher Lam,6 Thomas Buchheit,7 Brennan J Boettcher,8 George C Chang Chien,9 Scott G Pritzlaff,10 Christopher Centeno,11 Shane A Shapiro,12 Johana Klasova,1 Jay S Grider,13 Ryan Hubbard,14 Eliana Ege,15 Shelby Johnson,8 Max H Epstein,16 Eva Kubrova,8 Mohamed Ehab Ramadan,17 Alexandra Michelle Moreira,18 Swarnima Vardhan,19 Yashar Eshraghi,20 Saba Javed,21 Newaj M Abdullah,22 Paul J Christo,17 Sudhir Diwan,23 Leslie C Hassett,24 Dawood Sayed,6 Timothy R Deer25 1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 3Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 5Precision Spine Care, Tyler, TX, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 8Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 9Department of Regenerative Medicine, GCC Institute, Torrance, CA, USA; 10Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 11Centeno-Schultz Clinic, Broomfield, CO, USA; 12Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 13Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA; 14Department of Sports Medicine, Anderson Orthopedic Clinic, Arlington, VA, USA; 15Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 16Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 17Department of Anesthesiology and Cri

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy R Deer,2,3 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Christopher M Lam,1 Kamil Sochacki,4 Nasir Hussain,5 Tristan E Weaver,5 Jay Karri,6,7 Vwaire Orhurhu,8,9 Natalie Holmes Strand,10 Jacqueline Soicher Weisbein,11 Jonathan M Hagedorn,12 Ryan S D’Souza,12 Ryan R Budwany,2 Ahish Chitneni,13 Kasra Amirdelfan,14 Michael J Dorsi,15 Dan TD Nguyen,16 Christopher Bovinet,17 Alaa Abd-Elsayed18 1Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Pain Services, Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 5Anesthesiology, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Williamsport, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, MVM Health, East Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 10Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Interventional Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 13Department of Rehabilitation & Regenerative Medicine, New York Presbyterian – Columbia & Cornell, New York, NY, USA; 14Director of Clinical Research, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 16Neuroradiology & Pain Solutions of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA; 17The Spine Center of SE Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 18Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USACorrespondence: Dawood Sayed, Anesthesiology and

We study a dynamic model of collective action in which agents are connected by a social network. Our approach highlights the importance of communication in this problem and conceives that network – which is continuously evolving – as providing the channel through which agents not only interact but also communicate. We consider two alternative scenarios that differ only on how agents form their expectations: while in the “benchmark” context agents are completely informed, in the alternative one their expectations are formed through a combination of local observation and social learning à la DeGroot. We completely characterize the long-run behavior of the system in both cases and show that only in the latter scenario (arguably the most realistic) there is a significant long-run probability that agents eventually achieve collective action within a meaningful time scale. We suggest that this sheds light on the puzzle of how large populations can coordinate on globally desired outcomes. Finally, we illustrate the empirical potential of the model by showing that it can be efficiently estimated for the Egyptian Arab Spring using large-scale cross-sectional data from Twitter. This estimation exercise also suggests that, in this instance, network-based social learning played a leading role in the process underlying collective action.

Christopher M Lam,1 Sarah A Keim,2 Dawood Sayed,1 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,3 Amitabh Gulati,4 Michael E Schatman,5,6 Timothy Deer,7 Usman Latif1 1Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Department of Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 6Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 7The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Christopher M Lam, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 1034, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1-(704)-488-5665, Fax +1-913-588-3365, Email clam2@kumc.eduBackground: Chronic abdominal pain (CAP) is a common and challenging to treat condition with a global prevalence of up to 25%. Despite extensive evaluation, approximately 40% of patients with CAP have an unknown diagnosis. Medications may be ineffective, and surgery is rarely indicated. Interventional treatment including sympathetic blocks, sympathetic neurolysis, and transversus abdominal plane (TAP) blocks may be an option, but their efficacy can wane over time. Neuromodulation has emerged as an option for these patients, as there is evidence of success with dorsal column spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) may be an alternative option, particularly in higher risk patients or in patients for whom neuraxial access may be unsafe or too technically challenging. Thoracoabdominal nerve peripheral nerve stimulation via a TAP approach may be more specifically targeted in compa

Anuj Shah,1 Jonathan M Hagedorn,2 Usman Latif,3 Ashley Bailey-Classen,4 Nomen Azeem,5 Douglas P Beall,6 Pankaj Mehta,7 Chad Stephens,8 Larry Khoo,9 Timothy Ray Deer10 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, USA; 4Trinity Pain Medicine Associates, Fort Worth, TX, USA; 5Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA; 6Comprehensive Specialty Care, Edmond, OK, USA; 7Pain Specialists of Austin and Central Texas Pain Center, Austin, TX, USA; 8Noble Pain Management and Sports Medicine, Southlake, TX, USA; 9The Spine Clinic of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 10The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Anuj Shah, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Detroit Medical Center, 261 Mack Ave, Detroit, MI, 48220, USA, Tel +1 734646-0321, Email Anujshah74@gmail.comIntroduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common condition caused by degenerative changes in the lumbar spine with age. LSS is caused by a variety of factors, including degenerative spondylosis and spondylolisthesis. People suffering with LSS experience neurogenic claudication, which causes severe physical limitations, discomfort, and a decrease in quality of life. Less invasive procedures are now being researched to improve the prognosis, success rate, and safety of LSS treatments. Posterior lateral spinal arthrodesis (PLSA) is a new surgical treatment for LSS. This study looks at the procedural and patient safety of PLSA.Materials and methods: This study is a multicenter retrospective analysis of the safety of PLSA who met the clinical indications for PLSA and underwent the procedure at eight interventional spine practices. Data was collected on demographical information, pre-pro

Mayank Gupta,1,* Anand S Patil,2,* Ahish Chitneni,3 Michael E Schatman,4 Hemant Kalia,5 Timothy R Deer,6 Dawood Sayed,7 Amol Soin,8 Ganesan Baranidharan,9 Peter Staats,10 Leonardo Kapural,11 Phani Ashok Attaluri,12 Paul Verrills,13 Sudhir Diwan,14 Danielle Levin,4 Nimisha Halder,15 Alaa A Abd-Elsayed16 1Kansas Pain Management & Neuroscience Research Center, LLC, Overland Park, KS, USA; 2St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Medical Center, Spokane, WA, USA; 3Newyork-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 5Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA; 6The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 7The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, USA; 8The Ohio Pain Clinic, Dayton, OH, USA; 9Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 10National Spine & Pain Centers, Frederick, MD, USA; 11Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 12Olathe Health, Olathe, KS, USA; 13Metro Pain Group, Clayton, VIC, Australia; 14Manhattan Spine & Pain, New York, NY, USA; 15Kansas City University, Kansas City, MO, USA; 16UW Health Pain Services, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Mayank Gupta, Kansas Pain Management & Neuroscience Research Center, LLC, Overland Park, KS, USA, Email mayank.g@kansaspainmanagement.comAbstract: In this article, we propose a new diagnostic paradigm known as Chronic Abdominal Discomfort Syndrome (CADS). Patient’s presentation centers around chronic abdominal pain not explained by acute pathology with or without accompanying dyspepsia, bloating, nausea and vomiting among other symptoms. The pathophysiology is noted to be neurogenic, possibly stemming from visceral sympathetic nerves or abdominal wall afferent nerves. Diagnosis is supported by signs or symptoms traversing clinical, diagnostic a

Aaron Calodney,1 Nomen Azeem,2 Patrick Buchanan,3 Ioannis Skaribas,4 Ajay Antony,5 Christopher Kim,6 George Girardi,7 Chau Vu,8 Christopher Bovinet,9 Rainer Vogel,10 Sean Li,11 Navdeep Jassal,12 Youssef Josephson,13 Timothy Lubenow,14 Christopher M Lam,15 Timothy R Deer6 1Precision Spine Care, Tyler, TX, USA; 2Florida Spine and Pain Specialists, Tampa, FL, USA; 3Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA; 4Expert Pain P.A, Houston, TX, USA; 5The Orthopaedic Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA; 6The Spine and Nerve Center, Charleston, WV, USA; 7Front Range Pain Medicine, Fort Collins, CO, USA; 8Evolve Restoration Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; 9The Spine Center of Southeast Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 10Comprehensive and Interventional Pain Management, Henderson, NV, USA; 11Premier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA; 12Excel Pain and Spine, Lakeland, FL, USA; 13The Pain Management Center, Voorhees Township, NJ, USA; 14Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA; 15University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USACorrespondence: Aaron Calodney, Precision Spine Care, Tyler, TX, USA, Email aaroncalodney@me.comIntroduction: Research suggests that sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is responsible for 15% to 30% of reported low back pain cases. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in SIJ fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to safety. Initially, devices designed for MIS were intended for lateral approaches. A minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion implant for use with a posterior approach has been developed and is regulated for clinical use under the regulatory framework required for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).Methods: A multi-center, prospective, single-arm study was launched after initial studies provided preliminary data to support safety, efficacy, and durability of this minimally invasive sacroiliac posterior fusion LinQ allograft implant (NCT04423120). Preliminary results wer

Ganesan Baranidharan,1,2 Beatrice Bretherton,1,3 Richard G Feltbower,4 Jake Timothy,5 Almas Latif Khan,6,7 Ashok Subramanian,8 Mushtaq Ahmed,9 Tracey A Crowther,1,10 Helen Radford,10,11 Harun Gupta,12 Muthusamy Chandramohan,13 Douglas P Beall,14 Timothy R Deer,15 Thomas Hedman16 1Pain Management Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 2School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 3School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 4Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 5Department of Neuroscience, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 6Department of Spine Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 7Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 8Somerset Spinal Surgery Service, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK; 9Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK; 10Research & Innovation, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 11Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; 12Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 13Radiology Department, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK; 14Comprehensive Specialty Care, Edmond, OK, USA; 15The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 16Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USACorrespondence: Ganesan Baranidharan, Pain Management Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK, Email g.baranidharan@nhs.netPurpose: An early-stage, multi-centre, prospective, randomised control trial with five-year follow-up was approved by Health Research Authority to compare the efficacy of a minimally invasive, laterally implanted interspinous fixation device (IFD) to open direct surgical decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Two-year results

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy R Deer,2,3 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Christopher M Lam,1 Kamil Sochacki,4 Nasir Hussain,5 Tristan E Weaver,5 Jay Karri,6,7 Vwaire Orhurhu,8,9 Natalie Holmes Strand,10 Jacqueline Soicher Weisbein,11 Jonathan M Hagedorn,12 Ryan S D’Souza,12 Ryan R Budwany,2 Ahish Chitneni,13 Kasra Amirdelfan,14 Michael J Dorsi,15 Dan TD Nguyen,16 Christopher Bovinet,17 Alaa Abd-Elsayed18 1Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Pain Services, Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 5Anesthesiology, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Williamsport, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, MVM Health, East Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 10Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Interventional Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 13Department of Rehabilitation & Regenerative Medicine, New York Presbyterian – Columbia & Cornell, New York, NY, USA; 14Director of Clinical Research, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 16Neuroradiology & Pain Solutions of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA; 17The Spine Center of SE Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 18Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USACorrespondence: Dawood Sayed, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Universit

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy Ray Deer,2 Jonathan M Hagedorn,3 Asim Sayed,4 Ryan S D’Souza,3 Christopher M Lam,1 Nasir Khatri,5 Zohra Hussaini,1 Scott G Pritzlaff,6 Newaj Mohammad Abdullah,7 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Steven Michael Falowski,8 Yussr M Ibrahim,9 Mark N Malinowski,10 Ryan R Budwany,2 Natalie Holmes Strand,11 Kamil M Sochacki,12 Anuj Shah,13 Tyler M Dunn,11 Morad Nasseri,14 David W Lee,15 Leonardo Kapural,16 Marshall David Bedder,17,18 Erika A Petersen,19 Kasra Amirdelfan,20 Michael E Schatman,21,22 Jay Samuel Grider23 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Pain Services, Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4Podiatry/Surgery, Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital, El Dorado, KS, USA; 5Interventional Pain Medicine, Novant Spine Specialists, Charlotte, NC, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 8Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME, USA; 10OhioHealth Neurological Physicians, OhioHealth, Columbus, OH, USA; 11Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 13Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA; 14Interventional Pain Medicine / Neurology, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Pain Management Specialist, Fullerton Orthopedic, Fullerton, CA, USA; 16Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA; 17Chief of Pain Medicine Service, Augusta VAMC, Augusta, GA, USA; 18Associate Professor and Director, Addiction Medicine Fellowship Program, Departm

Video games are one of the most influential entertainment media of the 21st century, and many borrow heavily from archaeological material to enhance realism and marketability in their assets, settings, and narratives, yet the study of this widespread phenomenon and its impact on public perceptions of archaeology and heritage remains vastly underrepresented in archaeological scholarship. Using a combination of primary ethnographic research and qualitative data analysis, this thesis draws on archaeological and anthropological discourse to approach three research questions exploring the ways that game developers construct, use, and reinvent archaeological knowledge, the purpose and impact of these depictions, and how the greater involvement of archaeologists could improve archaeological representation in digital games. In seeking to address these questions the thesis navigates emerging relationships between video games, archaeology and heritage, taking a critical approach to developer involvement in the construction of a playable past. The findings reveal that video game depictions of archaeology and heritage are shaped by developer notions of historical accuracy and authenticity, informed by a complex and cyclical network of popular perceptions of the past. A willingness to meaningfully engage with archaeological research is hindered by a reliance on open-access resources and a commercial interest to cater to player expectations through the repetition of outdated conventions and archetypes. This study therefore advocates for a conscientious adaptation of archaeological methods to improve developer access to research, alongside the creation of consolidated academic spaces to further explore cross-disciplinary video game applications and actively engage with the game industry.

Nursing education is increasingly incorporating virtual simulation-based experiences (SBE), to provide learners with realistic clinical scenarios. While existing literature supports the effectiveness of virtual simulations, there is a need for more evidence to establish their overall effectiveness compared to traditional manikin-based SBE. To address this knowledge gap, a pilot study was conducted, guided by Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and the NLN Jeffries Simulation Theory. The study compared the pedagogical effectiveness of virtual SBE with manikin-based SBE in terms of learner satisfaction, self-confidence, knowledge acquisition, skills development, and the transfer of learning to clinical practice. Participants (N = 30) were randomly assigned to engage in either a screen-based serious game or a manikin-based SBE, both with the same learning objectives and clinical indicators. Findings indicate that virtual serious games had less pedagogical effectiveness than manikin-based simulations in terms of learner confidence, knowledge acquisition, and critical thinking categories of learning. However, except for critical thinking aspects of learning of which manikin-based simulations were reported to be more effective, there was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities., 2024-06