Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37113716›Full record

ReviewEcancermedicalscience2023

Virtual reality and surgical oncology.

Peng Yun Ng, Eric G Bing, Anthony Cuevas, Ajay Aggarwal, Benjamin Chi, Sudha Sundar, Mulindi Mwanahamuntu, Miriam Mutebi, Richard Sullivan, Groesbeck P Parham

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07498816 (Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07498816 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) on Respiratory Effort: A Pilot Study in Healthy Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2025 to 2026Enrolled10ConditionsVirtual Reality, Respiratory Effort, ExerciseArmsImmersive Virtual Reality
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Peng Yun NgKing's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Eric G BingInstitute for Leadership Impact, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75205, USA.
Anthony CuevasDepartment of Teaching and Learning, Technology-Enhanced Immersive Learning Cluster, Annette Simmons School of Education and Human Development, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75205, USA.
Ajay AggarwalKing's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Benjamin ChiIcahn School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA.
Sudha SundarInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B152TT, UK.
Mulindi MwanahamuntuWomen and Newborn Hospital, University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka 10101, Zambia.
Miriam MutebiDepartment of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi 30270-00100, Kenya.
Richard SullivanConflict & Health Research Group, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Groesbeck P ParhamDepartment of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi 30270-00100, Kenya.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P025420/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than 80% of people diagnosed with cancer will require surgery. However, less than 5% have access to safe, affordable and timely surgery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) settings mostly due to the lack of trained workforce. Since its creation, virtual reality (VR) has been heralded as a viable adjunct to surgical training, but its adoption in surgical oncology to date is poorly understood. We undertook a systematic review to determine the application of VR across different surgical specialties, modalities and cancer pathway globally between January 2011 and 2021. We reviewed their characteristics and respective methods of validation of 24 articles. The results revealed gaps in application and accessibility of VR with a proclivity for high-income countries and high-risk, complex oncological surgeries. There is a lack of standardisation of clinical evaluation of VR, both in terms of clinical trials and implementation science. While all VR illustrated face and content validity, only around two-third exhibited construct validity and predictive validity was lacking overall. In conclusion, the asynchrony between VR development and actual global cancer surgery demand means the technology is not effectively, efficiently and equitably utilised to realise its surgical capacity-building potential. Future research should prioritise cost-effective VR technologies with predictive validity for high demand, open cancer surgeries required in LMICs.

Indexed as

augmented realitycancerglobal oncologyimplementation scienceinnovationsurgerysurgical oncologytechnologyvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID37113716
PMCPMC10129400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.