ReviewJournal of medical extended reality2025
Augmented Reality in Interventional Radiology: A Review of Systems, Ergonomics, Applications, and Outcomes.
Review in Journal of medical extended reality, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interventional radiology (IR) procedures traditionally rely on two-dimensional imaging for guidance. Augmented reality (AR) offers a transformative approach by overlaying two-dimensional radiological images or three-dimensional digital reconstructions onto the real-world environment, potentially improving procedural precision and operator ergonomics. This narrative literature review examines AR systems, procedural workflow, operator ergonomics, current clinical applications, and outcomes. Inclusion criteria include studies investigating AR in IR, excluding articles unrelated to IR procedures. Current literature suggests improved ergonomics, mainly enhanced depth perception, decreased eye movement/fatigue, and decreased cybersickness with overall operator tolerability. Clinical studies demonstrated reductions in radiation exposure and procedural times, with comparable accuracy to standard techniques. Limitations include the lack of large-scale clinical data and standardized evaluation metrics.
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.