Trial reportJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Mixed reality with 3D brain imaging for patient consultation in neurosurgery: an IDEAL stage 2a feasibility study.
Trial report in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility of introducing additional Mixed Reality (MR) visualisation of patient-specific imaging during the neurosurgical consultation to improve patients' understanding, as well as the potential benefits from a patient's perspective to the consultation process.
methodsAn IDEAL Stage 2a feasibility randomised controlled trial was conducted involving patients with radiologically suspected brain tumours at a large, tertiary UK neurosurgery institution. Patients were randomised into two groups: standard 2D monitor versus additional MR visualisation. Primary feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, MR intervention adherence, fidelity, and acceptability. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported experiences. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed via validated questionnaires.
resultsA total of 36 patients were randomised over 12 months, 17 to a Mixed Reality (MR) Group and 19 to a standard 2D monitor-only group, with no significant baseline differences. MR intervention was deemed feasible for further clinical evaluation with high fidelity and user acceptability. Patients in the MR group reported statistically higher satisfaction with information received, an improved patient-doctor relationship, greater confidence in decision-making, and a better understanding of their condition compared to the standard 2D monitor-only group. No major technological issues were encountered. No adverse effects were reported or observed (including cybersickness). Patients found the MR technology easy to use.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that incorporating MR visualisation into routine neurosurgical consultations is feasible and offers potential benefits for patients. With minor modifications to the intervention and assessments, we aim to perform a larger-scale, multi-centre randomised feasibility trial, which will also address implementation challenges for widespread adoption and provide more indication of efficacy.
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.