Trial reportEuropean radiology2023
Learning how to perform ultrasound-guided interventions with and without augmented reality visualization: a randomized study.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness of augmented reality/mixed reality in medical education: a meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Augmented reality visualization for ultrasound-guided interventions: a pilot randomized crossover trial to assess trainee performance and cognitive load.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Perspective or Spectacle? Teaching thoracic aortic anatomy in a mixed reality assisted educational approach- a two-armed randomized pilot study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- Feasibility and Usability of Head-Mounted Display Augmented Reality During Routine Radiological Interventions: The Prospective AZURION-AR Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Augmented-reality enhanced ultrasound guidance: a sterile, hands-free approach using commercial augmented reality headsets.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Next viewer-development of a software for the spatial computing data glasses apple vision pro for patient-specific preoperative planning and navigation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Congenital unilateral athelia associated with mammary Paget's disease, high-grade ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Integrated Needle Guide on Smartphone for Percutaneous Interventions Using Augmented Reality.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Current applications and future perspectives of extended reality in radiology.La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
- Innovations in ultrasound training in obstetrics.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Review
- Exploring the dynamics of ultrasound training in medical education: current trends, debates, and approaches to didactics and hands-on learning.BMC medical education · 2024Review
- Performance Comparison of Augmented Reality Versus Ultrasound Guidance for Puncture: A Phantom Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Article
- Review
- Evidence and Practicality of Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in the Intensive Care Unit: A New Skill Set for the Intensivist.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.