ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Augmented reality for ultrasound-guided venipuncture: a pilot study on a simulated vascular access model.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility of a low-cost augmented reality (AR) workflow for ultrasound-guided venipuncture and whether AR visualisation is non-inferior to conventional monitor guidance in total procedure time while improving user experience. Real-time ultrasound video from a conventional scanner was captured via an HDMI-to-USB device, pre-processed with a Python/OpenCV pipeline, and streamed over Wi-Fi to a HoloLens 2 headset using WebSocket. A turkey-thigh model with an embedded fluid-filled catheter simulated a peripheral vein. One experienced implantation nurse performed 58 venipuncture attempts with standard monitor guidance and 58 with AR (monitor blanked during AR). Total procedure time (TPT) was recorded for each attempt, and a questionnaire assessed perceived difficulty, image quality, usability, reliability, and ergonomic comfort. With all data included, overall TPT was comparable between standard and AR guidance ([Formula: see text] s vs. [Formula: see text] s; [Formula: see text]). After excluding predefined outliers, overall TPT remained non-significantly lower with AR ([Formula: see text] s vs. [Formula: see text] s; [Formula: see text]); on day 2 the p-value decreased to 0.103 ([Formula: see text] s vs. [Formula: see text] s). Questionnaire responses favoured AR for gaze continuity, perceived coordination, usability, and ergonomic comfort, with acceptable image quality. AR-assisted ultrasound-guided venipuncture was feasible and did not add measurable temporal overhead for an expert operator, while improving perceived ergonomics. Larger, multi-operator clinical studies are needed to confirm performance effects and clinical impact.
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.