Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40294086›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Uses of augmented reality in surgical consent and patient education - A systematic review.

Thomas Evans, Adam Turna, Thomas D Stringfellow, Gareth G Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Thomas EvansTrauma and Orthopaedic Registrar, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Isle of Wight NHS Trust, Newport, United Kingdom.
Adam TurnaResident Doctor, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, United Kingdom.
Thomas D StringfellowGIRFT Research Fellow and Trauma and Orthopaedic Registrar, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4944-8231
Gareth G JonesConsultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon and Clinical Senior Lecturer in Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Imperial College NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Augmented reality (AR) allows the real environment to be altered with superimposed graphics using a head-mounted-display (HMD), smartphone or tablet. AR in surgery is being explored as a potential disruptive technology and could be used to improve patient understanding of treatment and as an adjunct for surgery. The aim was to explore this use of AR and assess potential benefits for consent and patient education. A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA-SCR guidelines. 4 major bibliographic databases were searched using the terms: '(augmented reality OR mixed reality) AND surgery AND (consent OR patient education)'. Included papers evaluated an AR intervention on consenting patients for enhancing surgical consent or education about a procedure. Non-English language papers and studies which did evaluate an intervention were excluded. Three reviewers screened all abstracts and full text papers for inclusion. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020207360). 52 records were identified. Following removal of 13 duplicates, 21 were removed after abstract screening leaving 17 articles for full assessment. One article was a letter and 8 did not evaluate interventions, leaving 8 articles published between 2019 and 2023. 3 papers were randomised controlled trials comparing AR enhanced processes to standard consent, 2 cohort studies evaluated patient satisfaction with AR interventions and there was one randomised crossover trial of AR against traditional consent consultation. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used most studies were deemed as high risk of bias. Patient satisfaction and understanding were improved using AR. However, advantages over other enhanced techniques are less clear. Using AR to enhance written literature was shown to require less mental effort from patients and was preferred to standard resources to understand complex surgery. The few randomised trials are limited by bias and lack of power calculation, highlighting the need for further research.

Identifiers

PMID40294086
PMCPMC12036893

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.