ReviewCureus2024
Assessing the Impact of Augmented Reality on Surgical Skills Training for Medical Students: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Augmented Reality in Surgical Training: Systematic Review of Its Impact on Technical Performance in Surgical Trainees.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Extended reality and emerging artificial intelligence in orthopedic surgical training: a scoping review of educational outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Augmented reality (AR) is increasingly being explored as a tool to enhance surgical skills training in medical education. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of AR in improving surgical skills among medical students. A comprehensive literature search identified studies on AR in surgical training, and data were extracted on sample size, type and dose of intervention, AR technology, application context, parameters, diagnoses, outcomes, and main results. Five studies were included, demonstrating that AR significantly improved technical performance (mean improvement of 35%, 95% CI (28%-42%)), accuracy (mean improvement of 29%, 95% CI (23%-35%)), and procedural knowledge (mean improvement of 32%, 95% CI (25%-39%)) compared to traditional methods. AR also resulted in higher student engagement (mean score 4.5/5, SD = 0.6), satisfaction (mean score 4.7/5, SD = 0.5), and confidence (mean improvement of 30%, 95% CI (24%-36%)). However, variability in AR technologies, intervention types, and outcome measures was observed. Small sample sizes (median = 34) and short follow-up periods (median = two weeks) limited generalizability. Despite these limitations, AR shows potential for enhancing surgical skills training, and optimizing its use could improve medical education and patient care. Further research is required to establish standardized protocols and validate the long-term efficacy of AR in surgical education.
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.