ReviewJournal of imaging2022
What Is Significant in Modern Augmented Reality: A Systematic Analysis of Existing Reviews.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Augmented Reality Technology as a Dietary Monitoring and Control Measure Among Adults: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Advanced Scene Perception for Augmented Reality.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Augmented reality (AR) is a field of technology that has evolved drastically during the last decades, due to its vast range of applications in everyday life. The aim of this paper is to provide researchers with an overview of what has been surveyed since 2010 in terms of AR application areas as well as in terms of its technical aspects, and to discuss the extent to which both application areas and technical aspects have been covered, as well as to examine whether one can extract useful evidence of what aspects have not been covered adequately and whether it is possible to define common taxonomy criteria for performing AR reviews in the future. To this end, a search with inclusion and exclusion criteria has been performed in the Scopus database, producing a representative set of 47 reviews, covering the years from 2010 onwards. A proper taxonomy of the results is introduced, and the findings reveal, among others, the lack of AR application reviews covering all suggested criteria.
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.