Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Augmented Reality for Guideline Presentation in Medicine: Randomized Crossover Simulation Trial for Technically Assisted Decision-making.
Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smart Glasses: A New Tool for Assessing the Number of Patients in Mass-Casualty Incidents.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2022Trial
- Current Clinical and Educational Uses of Immersive Reality in Anesthesia: Narrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Applications of Augmented Reality for Prehospital Emergency Care: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2025Review
- Anomaly detection and early risk identification in digital disaster response-based on deep learning in public health.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Telemedicine via data glasses in CBRN protection suit-Evaluation of medical qualification and technical feasibility.PloS one · 2025Article
- Examining Physical Therapy Students' Subjective Mastery of Simulated Clinical Practice Using Smart Glasses to Share Teacher's Visual Field Information.Juntendo medical journal · 2025Article
- NurseVerse: nursing in the metaverse era.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Use of Smart Glasses (Assisted Reality) for Western Australian X-ray Operators' Continuing Professional Development: A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines provide instructions for diagnostics and therapy in modern medicine. Various mobile devices are used to represent the potential complex decision trees. An example of time-critical decisions is triage in case of a mass casualty incident.
objectiveIn this randomized controlled crossover study, the potential of augmented reality for guideline presentation was evaluated and compared with the guideline presentation provided in a tablet PC as a conventional device.
methodsA specific Android app was designed for use with smart glasses and a tablet PC for the presentation of a triage algorithm as an example for a complex guideline. Forty volunteers simulated a triage based on 30 fictional patient descriptions, each with technical support from smart glasses and a tablet PC in a crossover trial design. The time to come to a decision and the accuracy were recorded and compared between both devices.
resultsA total of 2400 assessments were performed by the 40 volunteers. A significantly faster time to triage was achieved in total with the tablet PC (median 12.8 seconds, IQR 9.4-17.7; 95% CI 14.1-14.9) compared to that to triage with smart glasses (median 17.5 seconds, IQR 13.2-22.8, 95% CI 18.4-19.2; P=.001). Considering the difference in the triage time between both devices, the additional time needed with the smart glasses could be reduced significantly in the course of assessments (21.5 seconds, IQR 16.5-27.3, 95% CI 21.6-23.2) in the first run, 17.4 seconds (IQR 13-22.4, 95% CI 17.6-18.9) in the second run, and 14.9 seconds (IQR 11.7-18.6, 95% CI 15.2-16.3) in the third run (P=.001). With regard to the accuracy of the guideline decisions, there was no significant difference between both the devices.
conclusionsThe presentation of a guideline on a tablet PC as well as through augmented reality achieved good results. The implementation with smart glasses took more time owing to their more complex operating concept but could be accelerated in the course of the study after adaptation. Especially in a non-time-critical working area where hands-free interfaces are useful, a guideline presentation with augmented reality can be of great use during clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.