ReviewBJA open2026
Using head-mounted augmented and virtual reality devices for anaesthesia education: a scoping review.
Review in BJA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head-mounted devices (HMDs) have been explored in anaesthesia education for their unique ability to have head-tracked immersive simulations adaptable to diverse clinical scenarios. This scoping review examines how HMD-based augmented or virtual reality enhances anaesthetic skill learning in clinicians, trainees, and students. Excluding patient-user focused studies, 22 articles addressed airway management, neuraxial and regional anaesthetic procedures, vascular access, and practice scenarios. Overall, HMDs improved engagement, knowledge retention, and user confidence, with some evidence of improved procedural performance, but technical limitations and difficulty adopting new technology persist. Airway studies reported improved recall and confidence. Neuraxial training suggested improved skill acquisition and needle placement. Regional anaesthesia training was as effective or superior to conventional methods while requiring fewer instructors. HMD-assisted vascular and central venous training reduced head movement but had mixed efficiency outcomes. Virtual scenario simulations using HMDs were engaging, but sometimes difficult to interact with. Despite promising findings, heterogenous methodologies, lack of control groups, and limited long-term results limit definitive conclusions on HMD superiority over conventional teaching, indicating a need for larger multicentre trials. Future research should standardise study design in comparison with conventional teaching, evaluate learning curves, technical limitations, cost-effectiveness, and investigate HMD-based team training. HMDs in their current form as devices with an immature technology and software base serve best as complementary, not replacement, simulation tools.
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.