{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031950207468879666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014107883817427386, 'mean_word_length': 4.65962441314554, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary to “Nurse-Physician Communication Team Training in Virtual Reality Versus Live Simulations: Randomized Controlled Trial on Team Communication and Teamwork Attitudes” by Sok Ying Liaw et al, J Med Internet Res, 2020 (Preprint)


 UNSTRUCTURED
 An article entitled " Nurse-Physician Communication Team Training in Virtual Reality Versus Live Simulations: Randomized Controlled Trial on Team Communication and Teamwork Attitudes" was published in the J Med Internet Res VOL. 22, NO. 4, 2020 (https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/17279) by Sok Ying Liaw et al. In this study, communication skill performances and teamwork attitudes were measured, using the Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Team (ATHCT) and Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) questionnaires among 120 undergraduate medical and nursing students. We would like to address specific issues to avoid misunderstanding of messages from the manuscript by Sok Ying Liaw et al. 
1. It would be better if the full name of the tools was mentioned in the abstract.
2. It would have been better to pay more attention to the review of the texts and to express the existing gap, more clearly, in introduction. 
3. In the method section, random allocation of samples is not described in detail. The inclusion and exclusion criteria, the exact time and location of sample collection, the code of ethic are not mentioned. 
4. The details for the using tools are missing and consequently it is difficult to assess the tool quality and variability. Regarding the tools, the range and method of scoring, the minimum and maximum scores, the presence or absence of a reverse score, the dimensions and subgroups of the scales and designer of scale should be clearly and explicitly mentioned (1).
5. The reason for using parametric tests is not mentioned.
6. The information about the consent is missing. 
7. The missing and how to manage them is not mentioned.
8. In Table 2, the title and type of statistical analysis used is vague..
9. In the further discussion, the authors compared the studies, but interpretation in clinical application was not discussed on a solid basis.
10. In the limitation section, doing a study in an environment it is not limitation. It is a good idea due to the reduction of confounding variables.
11. There are no suggestions for future studies or careers in education, management, and research.
