Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Advancing medical training with augmented reality and haptic feedback simulator: outcomes of a randomized controlled trial on lumbar puncture.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05269238 (Improvement of the Performance of Lumbar Punctures After Training Students With an Augmented Reality SIMulator), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Improvement of the Performance of Lumbar Punctures After Training Students With an Augmented Reality SIMulator
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- User Experience Comparison of a Traditional Mannequin-Based and an Augmented Reality Lumbar Puncture Simulator in Geriatric Medicine Training: Questionnaire Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2026Article
- Advancing Medical Training with Mixed Reality and Haptic Feedback Simulator for Acupuncture Needling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Simulator-Based Training Sustainably Improves Confidence, Theoretical Knowledge, and Success Rates in Lumbar Puncture Among Medical Students: A Prospective Case-Control Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLumbar puncture (LP) procedure can be challenging, creating stress for both patients and students. This study assesses the effectiveness of augmented reality (AR) and haptic feedback simulation training compared to traditional bedside teaching.
methodWe conducted a prospective, single center, randomized controlled clinical trial with two parallel groups of medical students inexperienced in LP. Students were randomized to either the simulation group or the control group receiving traditional bedside teaching. Patients requiring LPs as part of their routine care were randomized. The primary outcome was LP success rate. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, complication rates and patient and student perceptions.
resultsThe study included 55 patients (AR group: n = 29; control group: n = 26). LP success rates were similar between groups (AR: 46.4%, control: 40.0%; p = 0.9). Median procedure duration was shorter in the AR group (138 s [IQR 37-454]) compared to the control group (695 s [IQR 15-900]), though not statistically significant (p = 0.67). Patient pain and anxiety scores did not differ significantly, but patients reported greater ease and higher satisfaction with simulator-trained students. Students in the AR group expressed greater comfort performing the procedure (7/10 vs. 6/10; p = 0.04). Complication rates were low and comparable across groups.
conclusionAlthough augmented reality simulation training did not improve LP success rate, it improved the procedural speed and student ease without compromising technical performance. Patients preferred to be handled by simulator-trained students. These findings support the integration of AR technologies in medical training to improve efficiency and relational skills. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: ID NCT05269238, Registration Date 2022-01-14.
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.