Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36350392›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2023

Learning how to perform ultrasound-guided interventions with and without augmented reality visualization: a randomized study.

Nadja A Farshad-Amacker, Rahel A Kubik-Huch, Christoph Kolling, Cornelia Leo, Jörg Goldhahn

Full text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Innovations in ultrasound training in obstetrics.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

5 authors.

Nadja A Farshad-AmackerRadiology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. nadja.farshad@balgrist.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2258-8899
Rahel A Kubik-HuchInstitute of Radiology, Department of Medical Services, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Christoph KollingInstitute of Translational Medicine, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Cornelia LeoDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Jörg GoldhahnInstitute of Translational Medicine, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAugmented reality (AR), which entails overlay of in situ images onto the anatomy, may be a promising technique for assisting image-guided interventions. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the learning experience and performance of untrained operators in puncture of soft tissue lesions, when using AR ultrasound (AR US) compared with standard US (sUS).

methodsForty-four medical students (28 women, 16 men) who had completed a basic US course, but had no experience with AR US, were asked to perform US-guided biopsies with both sUS and AR US, with a randomized selection of the initial modality. The experimental setup aimed to simulate biopsies of superficial soft tissue lesions, such as for example breast masses in clinical practice, by use of a turkey breast containing olives. Time to puncture(s) and success (yes/no) of the biopsies was documented. All participants completed questionnaires about their coordinative skills and their experience during the training.

resultsDespite having no experience with the AR technique, time to puncture did not differ significantly between AR US and sUS (median [range]: 17.0 s [6-60] and 14.5 s [5-41], p = 0.16), nor were there any gender-related differences (p = 0.22 and p = 0.50). AR US was considered by 79.5% of the operators to be the more enjoyable means of learning and performing US-guided biopsies. Further, a more favorable learning curve was achieved using AR US.

conclusionsStudents considered AR US to be the preferable and more enjoyable modality for learning how to obtain soft tissue biopsies; however, they did not perform the biopsies faster than when using sUS. KEY POINTS: • Performance of standard and augmented reality US-guided biopsies was comparable • A more favorable learning curve was achieved using augmented reality US. • Augmented reality US was the preferred technique and was considered more enjoyable.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityStudents, MedicalFemaleHumansLearningMaleUltrasonographyUltrasonography, InterventionalAugmented realityBiopsiesLearningPunctureUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID36350392
PMCPMC10017581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read13
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.