Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287787›Full record

ReviewHealthcare technology letters

Augmented Reality in Outpatient Care: A Narrative Review.

Archan Khandekar, Aryan Shah, Luis A Esparza Miranda, Frida Toscano Bello, Bruno Liebl, Jonathan Ryan, Pedro Angelo Basei de Paula, Ansh Bhatia, Timothy Guerard, Dipen J Parekh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare technology letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Archan KhandekarDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3177-3439
Aryan ShahDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.
Luis A Esparza MirandaDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2233-6106
Frida Toscano BelloDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.
Bruno LieblFederal University of Paraná (UFPR) Curitiba Brazil.
Jonathan RyanDr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine (NSU MD) Davie Florida USA.
Pedro Angelo Basei de PaulaDepartment of Internal Medicine Federal University of Paraná Curitiba Brazil.
Ansh BhatiaDepartment of Interventional Radiology University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.
Timothy GuerardDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.
Dipen J ParekhDesai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Miami Florida USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Augmented reality (AR) is seeing an increase in its applications in healthcare, but its reach in outpatient care remains undefined. Patients in outpatient settings face poor medical understanding. AR may help address this gap between patients and physicians through immersive and interactive models and supporting tools. This narrative review aims to evaluate the status of AR in outpatient care, categorise its applications, and identify limitations and future research needs. Methods: Four databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library-were conducted for peer-reviewed studies published from January 2015 to February 2025. Studies were included if they regarded AR interventions in outpatient care settings. Studies were analysed and grouped thematically into five clinical domains of AR intervention. Results: After review, 19 studies-spanning 987 participants-were included. AR applications were categorised into patient education and engagement (n = 3), cognitive and functional assessment (n = 3), device interaction and remote monitoring (n = 3), procedural guidance in outpatient interventions (n = 5), and rehabilitation and functional recovery support (n = 5). Most included studies were pilot studies (n = 6) and had relatively small sample sizes (median = 28). Studies proved that AR interventions consistently improved patient understanding, engagement and procedural support. Nevertheless, studies faced limitations including the need for specialised and bulky hardware-which affected patient comfort as well-reliability issues, technical difficulties and platform-specific inconsistencies. Conclusion: AR has been proved to have the potential to improve outpatient care across five main areas: patient education, cognitive and functional assessment, medical device interaction, procedural guidance and rehabilitation. Studies consistently support that AR enhances patient comprehension, engagement and procedural accuracy while allowing for remote monitoring and personalised therapy. Furthermore, AR interventions demonstrate high usability and clinical relevance. Nevertheless, limitations such as hardware complexity and inconsistent technical performance remain. Future research should prioritise large-scale RCTs and strategies to integrate AR into pre-existing digital workflows.

Indexed as

augmented realityhealthcare technologyoutpatient carepatient educationpatient understandingprocedural guidancerehabilitationremote monitoring

Identifiers

PMID41287787
PMCPMC12640284

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.