Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36900951›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Towards Wearable Augmented Reality in Healthcare: A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Head-Mounted Displays.

Yahia Baashar, Gamal Alkawsi, Wan Nooraishya Wan Ahmad, Mohammad Ahmed Alomari, Hitham Alhussian, Sieh Kiong Tiong

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. HoloLensTherapeutic advances in urology
    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

6 authors.

Yahia BaasharFaculty of Computing and Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Labuan 87000, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-8004-3929
Gamal AlkawsiInstitute of Sustainable Energy (ISE), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang 43000, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2456-4033
Wan Nooraishya Wan AhmadFaculty of Computing and Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Labuan 87000, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-0023-0896
Mohammad Ahmed AlomariInstitute of Informatics and Computing in Energy, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Kajang 43000, Malaysia.
Hitham AlhussianDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-3947-269X
Sieh Kiong TiongInstitute of Sustainable Energy (ISE), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang 43000, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Head-mounted displays (HMDs) have the potential to greatly impact the surgical field by maintaining sterile conditions in healthcare environments. Google Glass (GG) and Microsoft HoloLens (MH) are examples of optical HMDs. In this comparative survey related to wearable augmented reality (AR) technology in the medical field, we examine the current developments in wearable AR technology, as well as the medical aspects, with a specific emphasis on smart glasses and HoloLens. The authors searched recent articles (between 2017 and 2022) in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases and a total of 37 relevant studies were considered for this analysis. The selected studies were divided into two main groups; 15 of the studies (around 41%) focused on smart glasses (e.g., Google Glass) and 22 (59%) focused on Microsoft HoloLens. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialities and preoperative settings, namely dermatology visits and nursing skill training. Moreover, Microsoft HoloLens was used in telepresence applications and holographic navigation of shoulder and gait impairment rehabilitation, among others. However, some limitations were associated with their use, such as low battery life, limited memory size, and possible ocular pain. Promising results were obtained by different studies regarding the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using both Google Glass and Microsoft HoloLens in patient-centric settings as well as medical education and training. Further work and development of rigorous research designs are required to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of wearable AR devices in the future.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityMedicineSmart GlassesSurgery, Computer-AssistedWearable Electronic DevicesHumansclinical settingsGoogle Glasshead-mounted displayhealthcareMicrosoft HoloLenssmart glasses

Identifiers

PMID36900951
PMCPMC10002206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read15
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.