ArticleJournal of patient safety2025
Intelligent Verification Tool for Surgical Information of Ophthalmic Patients: A Study Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current landscape and research gaps in artificial intelligence for ophthalmic nursing: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Utility of Augmented Reality Glasses With Waveguide Optics and Facial Recognition Technology for Patient Verification in a Simulated Outpatient Setting: Physician Questionnaire Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Patient Journey Map of the Ophthalmic Day-Surgery Experience.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ambulatory Surgery: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of medical systems · 2025Review
- Mixed Reality in Undergraduate Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Benefits and Challenges.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWith the development of day surgery, the characteristics of "short, frequent and fast" ophthalmic surgery are becoming more prominent. However, nurses are not efficient in verifying patients' surgical information, and problems such as patient privacy leakage are becoming more prominent. To improve the situation, we developed a new augmented reality (AR)-based tool for visual recognition and artificial intelligent (AI) interpretation of the pattern and location of patient surgical skin markings for the verification of the correct surgical site and procedure. The tool can also display a variety of other verbally requested patient information. The purpose of this proposal is to evaluate its feasibility of use by surgical nurses in a real clinical setting.
methodsWe developed a tool with image recognition technologies to interpretation patient surgical skin markings and match the information obtained with the patients surgical records, thus, verify the patient's surgical information. Verification includes the proper surgical site and type of procedure to be performed. Nurses can interact with the device through its speech recognition capabilities and the device provides them with a variety of other requested patient information via a heads-up display. Three hundred patients in an outpatient ophthalmology clinic were divided into an AR intelligent verification experimental group and a manual verification control group. The accuracy of information verification, work time consumption, and economic cost data were compared between the 2 groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the AR Surgical Information Intelligent Verification Tool in clinical patient surgical information verification.
resultsThere was no statistically difference in the correct rates of patient surgical information review between the experimental group (95.33%) and the control group (98.67%) (χ 2 = 2.934, P = 0.087). The median time for information verification was 10.00 (10.00, 11.00) seconds in the experimental group and 21.00 (20.00, 24.00) seconds in the control group, a statistically difference (Z = 0.000, P < 0.001). The experimental group saved 11 seconds per patient per review compared with the control group. Considering 10,531 surgeries in 2023, printing 1 page of surgical information per 9 patients and requiring 4 copies, 4680 pages of printing paper could be saved.
conclusionsThe AR Surgical Information Intelligent Verification Tool has advantages in assisting medical staff in patient surgical information verification, improving nursing efficiency, preventing surgical mark errors or nonstandardization, protecting patient privacy, and saving costs. It has certain research and application value in the scenario of patient surgical information verification in ophthalmic day ward.
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.