Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37671031›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Intra-operative applications of augmented reality in glioma surgery: a systematic review.

Anya Ragnhildstveit, Chao Li, Mackenzie H Zimmerman, Michail Mamalakis, Victoria N Curry, Willis Holle, Noor Baig, Ahmet K Uğuralp, Layth Alkhani, Zeliha Oğuz-Uğuralp and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Obstacles and Trials in Treating Primary Brain Tumors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Progress in neurosurgical treatment of neurofibromatosis type 1].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

12 authors.

Anya RagnhildstveitIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Chao LiDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Mackenzie H ZimmermanIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Michail MamalakisDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Victoria N CurryIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Willis HolleIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Noor BaigIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Ahmet K UğuralpIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Layth AlkhaniIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Zeliha Oğuz-UğuralpIntegrated Research Literacy Group, Draper, UT, United States.
Rafael Romero-GarciaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
John SucklingDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Augmented reality (AR) is increasingly being explored in neurosurgical practice. By visualizing patient-specific, three-dimensional (3D) models in real time, surgeons can improve their spatial understanding of complex anatomy and pathology, thereby optimizing intra-operative navigation, localization, and resection. Here, we aimed to capture applications of AR in glioma surgery, their current status and future potential. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. This adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus electronic databases were queried from inception to October 10, 2022. Leveraging the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework, study eligibility was evaluated in the qualitative synthesis. Data regarding AR workflow, surgical application, and associated outcomes were then extracted. The quality of evidence was additionally examined, using hierarchical classes of evidence in neurosurgery. Results: The search returned 77 articles. Forty were subject to title and abstract screening, while 25 proceeded to full text screening. Of these, 22 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. During abstraction, studies were classified as "development" or "intervention" based on primary aims. Overall, AR was qualitatively advantageous, due to enhanced visualization of gliomas and critical structures, frequently aiding in maximal safe resection. Non-rigid applications were also useful in disclosing and compensating for intra-operative brain shift. Irrespective, there was high variance in registration methods and measurements, which considerably impacted projection accuracy. Most studies were of low-level evidence, yielding heterogeneous results. Conclusions: AR has increasing potential for glioma surgery, with capacity to positively influence the onco-functional balance. However, technical and design limitations are readily apparent. The field must consider the importance of consistency and replicability, as well as the level of evidence, to effectively converge on standard approaches that maximize patient benefit.

Indexed as

augmented realitybrain tumorgliomamixed realityneuronavigationneurosurgerysystematic reviewvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID37671031
PMCPMC10476869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.