Trial reportScientific reports2026
Randomized crossover study of immersive planning in craniomaxillofacial trauma comparing virtual reality and workstation workflows.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- From Computer-Assisted Surgery to Extended Reality: Research Trends, Global Collaboration, and Future Directions in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preoperative planning for cranio-maxillofacial (CMF) trauma requires precise understanding of complex anatomy. Planning in CMF trauma benefits from advanced visualization and segmentation techniques. While conventional workstation-based software is established, it is often time-consuming and less intuitive. Virtual reality (VR) platforms offer stereoscopic visualization and intuitive spatial interaction with volumetric data and have demonstrated potential advantages in efficiency and user acceptance in previous studies. The aim of this study was to compare workflow efficiency and usability of a VR-based platform with workstation-based software for CMF trauma segmentation. In a randomized crossover study, 15 participants segmented five CMF trauma CT datasets using both platforms. Each case was segmented twice (once per platform) in randomized order with a one-week washout period. Segmentation time was recorded, and user experience assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Statistical analysis used paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The VR platform completed segmentation significantly faster, with an average time reduction of 23 min (24%, p = 0.008). The SUS scores were higher for the VR platform; the VR platform exceeded the good usability threshold (73.0) while the workstation-based software scored below average (58.17). Participants rated the VR platform as less complex, easier to learn, and more intuitive. Both platforms received equivalent ratings for anatomical structure recognition and physical fatigue. VR-based segmentation demonstrated significant efficiency gains and favorable usability while maintaining equivalent anatomical visualization. These results suggest that immersive systems offer valuable benefits for CMF trauma planning.
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.