ArticleBMC medical education2022
The use of mixed reality technology for the objective assessment of clinical skills: a validation study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of extended reality head-mounted displays in US health care education: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Application of Mixed Reality for Ophthalmic Clinical Skills and Diagnosis: Prospective Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Trial
- Delivering remote procedural training on peripheral intravenous cannulation to medical students using the Microsoft Hololens 2: a mixed-methods evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Effect of Mixed Reality on Delivery of Emergency Medical Care in a Simulated Environment: A Pilot Randomized Crossover Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Holopatient technology in nursing education: a cross-sectional analysis of student and faculty perceptions.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of extended reality technologies in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Mixed Reality and PowerPoint in Education: Tailoring Learning Approaches to Cognitive Profiles.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Feasibility and reliability of the pandemic-adapted online-onsite hybrid graduation OSCE in Japan.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Article
- The feasibility and usability of mixed reality teaching in a hospital setting based on self-reported perceptions of medical students.BMC medical education · 2024Observational
- An Evaluation of the Microsoft HoloLens2 in the Clinical Teaching of Pain Pathways for Undergraduate Medical Students.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPMArticle
- HoloLensTherapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMixed Reality technology may provide many advantages over traditional teaching methods. Despite its potential, the technology has yet to be used for the formal assessment of clinical competency. This study sought to collect validity evidence and assess the feasibility of using the HoloLens 2 mixed reality headset for the conduct and augmentation of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs).
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted to compare the assessment of undergraduate medical students undertaking OSCEs via HoloLens 2 live (HLL) and recorded (HLR), and gold-standard in-person (IP) methods. An augmented mixed reality scenario was also assessed.
resultsThirteen undergraduate participants completed a total of 65 OSCE stations. Overall inter-modality correlation was 0.81 (p = 0.01), 0.98 (p = 0.01) and 0.82 (p = 0.01) for IP vs. HLL, HLL vs. HLR and IP vs. HLR respectively. Skill based correlations for IP vs. HLR were assessed for history taking (0.82, p = 0.01), clinical examination (0.81, p = 0.01), procedural (0.88, p = 0.01) and clinical skills (0.92, p = 0.01), and assessment of a virtual mixed reality patient (0.74, p = 0.01). The HoloLens device was deemed to be usable and practical (Standard Usability Scale (SUS) score = 51.5), and the technology was thought to deliver greater flexibility and convenience, and have the potential to expand and enhance assessment opportunities.
conclusionsHoloLens 2 is comparable to traditional in-person examination of undergraduate medical students for both live and recorded assessments, and therefore is a valid and robust method for objectively assessing performance. The technology is in its infancy, and users need to develop confidence in its usability and reliability as an assessment tool. However, the potential to integrate additional functionality including holographic content, automated tracking and data analysis, and to facilitate remote assessment may allow the technology to enhance, expand and standardise examinations across a range of educational contexts.
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.