Trial reportJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Comparison of Augmented Reality-Based and Conventional Training Methods for Radiographic Positioning in Second-Year Radiologic Technology Students in Japan.
Trial report in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Augmented Reality in Radiography Education: Opportunities, Limitations and Lessons From Virtual Reality Research.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn Japanese training schools for radiologic technologists, improving students' practical skills presents an educational challenge. To address this issue, an augmented reality (AR)-based visual assistance tool for radiographic positioning training was developed. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a previously developed AR tool with conventional training methods.
methodsFifty-seven second-year radiologic technology students were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group (n = 29) trained with AR and a control group (n = 28) trained with physical auxiliary tools. Both groups practised positioning the torso at 35° and 45° for 1.5 min each. The timeframe aligned with the typical time allocated to each student during traditional hands-on training. Proficiency tests were conducted 1 and 4 weeks after training to evaluate the accuracy of the angles.
resultsIn the test conducted 1 week after training, the experimental group demonstrated significantly smaller errors than the control group (p = 0.002). However, in the test administered 4 weeks after training, although the experimental group continued to show smaller errors, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.066).
conclusionAR-based training can enhance radiographic positioning training. However, a single brief session is considered insufficient for maintaining long-term learning effects. Continuous use of AR is warranted for achieving long-term educational effectiveness. Future research is needed to optimise AR training methods and determine the impact on students' clinical training performance and postgraduate proficiency.
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.