SynthesisBMC medical education2025
The effectiveness of augmented reality/mixed reality in medical education: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies and interventions to promote organ donation and transplantation among university students: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAugmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) are increasingly being applied in the field of medical education. However, the effectiveness and acceptance of AR/MR in different teaching scenarios remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness of AR/MR in improving medical students' knowledge and skills training.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Education Source, Education Resources Information Center, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, WeiPu, and Chinese BioMedical Literature databases were searched. The search encompassed literature from the database establishment to December 2023. Studies examining the use of AR/MR in medical education and reporting outcomes related to knowledge learning or skill training were included. The data were analyzed using Stata version 15.1 software.
resultsTwenty-nine publications were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to traditional teaching methods, AR/MR-assisted teaching showed greater effectiveness in medical skills training, as indicated by the higher skill scores (WMD = 12.31, 95% CI: 4.12 to 20.50), reduced failure rate (RD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.04), and shortened performance time (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.04). However, AR/MR did not significantly improve knowledge acquisition (WMD = 2.92, 95% CI: -1.73 to 7.57). The questionnaire survey revealed the advantages of AR/MR in terms of perceived usefulness (PU) (WMD = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.53), perceived ease of use (PEOU) (WMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.57), and enjoyment (WMD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.13).
conclusionThis meta-analysis highlights the effectiveness and user acceptance of AR/MR in medical education, particularly in skill training, although no significant improvement was observed in knowledge learning. The findings provide a foundational evidence base for the further expansion of AR/MR applications in medical education. However, it should be noted that these estimates may be influenced by heterogeneity and publication bias.
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.