ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026
Augmented Reality in Navigated Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Accuracy and System Performance.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the current state of clinically tested augmented reality and mixed reality, hereafter referred to as AR, navigation systems, with a focus on accuracy, usability, and factors influencing clinical implementation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection including studies published between January 1, 2018, and July 14, 2025. Only clinical studies involving patients were included. Data extraction covered study characteristics, surgical specialty, AR system type, reported accuracy, usability assessments, and implementation-related factors. Results: Of 1956 screened records, 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. The applications spanned oral and maxillofacial surgery (k=17), neurosurgery (k=12), spinal surgery (k=11), and orthopedics (k=10), among others. Reported accuracy metrics varied substantially across studies. Moreover, AR navigation often reduced radiation exposure during surgery and sometimes shortened operative time, although timing effects varied by specialty. Usability was rarely measured with standardized tools and was mostly described qualitatively. Common limitations were limited accuracy, ergonomic issues, and workflow-integration challenges. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ratings were generally low or very low owing to small samples, heterogeneous methods, and risk of bias. Conclusion: Although AR navigation demonstrates encouraging technical performance and potential reductions in radiation exposure, the underlying evidence is predominantly of very low certainty, and any impression of pooled robustness should be avoided. Furthermore, clinical integration is hindered by technical, ergonomic, and workflow-related barriers. Future work should incorporate robust methodological designs aimed at improving registration accuracy, overcoming hardware shortcomings, and systematically evaluating usability through validated, standardized tools.
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.