Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35946678›Full record

SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina

Augmented reality in interventional radiology education: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

And Yara Particelli Gelmini, Márcio Luís Duarte, Mayara Oliveira da Silva, Josias Bueno Guimarães Junior, Lucas Ribeiro Dos Santos

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

And Yara Particelli GelminiMD. Radiologist, Department of Radiology, WEBIMAGEM Telerradiologia, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0820-4393
Márcio Luís DuarteMSc. Musculoskeletal Radiologist, Centro Radiológico e Especialidades Médicas São Gabriel, Praia Grande (SP), Brazil; and Doctoral Student in Evidence-based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7874-9332
Mayara Oliveira da SilvaBSc. Biomedic, Biomedical imaging, Clínica Mega Imagem, Santos (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9882-3456
Josias Bueno Guimarães JuniorB.Eng. Engineer, Department of Engineering, MIP Engenharia, Belo Horizonte (MG), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2963-0730
Lucas Ribeiro Dos SantosMSc. Endocrinologist, Department of Physiology and Medical Clinic, and Professor of Physiology and Medical Clinic, Centro Universitário Lusíada (UNILUS), Santos (SP), Brazil; and Doctoral Student in Evidence-based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7897-1198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAugmented reality (AR) involves digitally overlapping virtual objects onto physical objects in real space so that individuals can interact with both at the same time. AR in medical education seeks to reduce surgical complications through high-quality education. There is uncertainty in the use of AR as a learning tool for interventional radiology procedures.

objectiveTo compare AR with other learning methods in interventional radiology. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of comparative studies on teaching techniques.

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Tripdatabase, ERIC, CINAHL, SciELO and LILACS electronic databases for studies comparing AR simulation with other teaching methods in interventional radiology. This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA and the BEME Collaboration. Eligible studies were evaluated using the quality indicators provided in the BEME Collaboration Guide no. 11, and the Kirkpatrick model.

resultsFour randomized clinical trials were included in this review. The level of educational evidence found among all the papers was 2B, according to the Kirkpatrick model. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for individual studies and across studies. Three studies showed an improvement in teaching of the proposed procedure through AR; one study showed that the participants took longer to perform the procedure through AR.

conclusionAR, as a complementary teaching tool, can provide learners with additional skills, but there is still a lack of studies with a higher evidence level according to the Kirkpatrick model. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ACZBM in the Open Science Framework database.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityClinical CompetenceHumansLearningRadiology, InterventionalRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35946678
PMCPMC9491476

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.