Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34420929›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Applications of Extended Reality in Ophthalmology: Systematic Review.

Chee Wui Ong, Marcus Chun Jin Tan, Michael Lam, Victor Teck Chang Koh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chee Wui OngYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0470-9725
Marcus Chun Jin TanDepartment of Ophthalmology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4849-6194
Michael LamDepartment of Ophthalmology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-9092-8624
Victor Teck Chang KohDepartment of Ophthalmology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4134-7142
National University of Singapore · SGNational University Hospital · SGNg Teng Fong General Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality make use of a variety of different software and hardware, but they share three main characteristics: immersion, presence, and interaction. The umbrella term for technologies with these characteristics is extended reality. The ability of extended reality to create environments that are otherwise impossible in the real world has practical implications in the medical discipline. In ophthalmology, virtual reality simulators have become increasingly popular as tools for surgical education. Recent developments have also explored diagnostic and therapeutic uses in ophthalmology.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and investigate the utility of extended reality in ophthalmic education, diagnostics, and therapeutics.

methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Publications from January 1, 1956 to April 15, 2020 were included. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating the use of extended reality in ophthalmic education, diagnostics, and therapeutics. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. Relevant studies were also evaluated using a validity framework. Findings and relevant data from the studies were extracted, evaluated, and compared to determine the utility of extended reality in ophthalmology.

resultsWe identified 12,490 unique records in our literature search; 87 met final eligibility criteria, comprising studies that evaluated the use of extended reality in education (n=54), diagnostics (n=5), and therapeutics (n=28). Of these, 79 studies (91%) achieved evidence levels in the range 2b to 4, indicating poor quality. Only 2 (9%) out of 22 relevant studies addressed all 5 sources of validity evidence. In education, we found that ophthalmic surgical simulators demonstrated efficacy and validity in improving surgical performance and reducing complication rates. Ophthalmoscopy simulators demonstrated efficacy and validity evidence in improving ophthalmoscopy skills in the clinical setting. In diagnostics, studies demonstrated proof-of-concept in presenting ocular imaging data on extended reality platforms and validity in assessing the function of patients with ophthalmic diseases. In therapeutics, heads-up surgical systems had similar complication rates, procedural success rates, and outcomes in comparison with conventional ophthalmic surgery.

conclusionsExtended reality has promising areas of application in ophthalmology, but additional high-quality comparative studies are needed to assess their roles among incumbent methods of ophthalmic education, diagnostics, and therapeutics.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityOphthalmologyVirtual RealityHumansaugmented realityextended realitymixed realityophthalmicophthalmologyvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID34420929
PMCPMC8414293
OpenAlexW3142879207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.