ArticleJMIR XR and spatial computing2025
Augmented Reality in Enhancing Operating Room Crisis Checklist Adherence: Randomized Comparative Efficacy Study.
Article in JMIR XR and spatial computing, 2025. 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.
- Early Detection of Cystoid Macular Edema in Retinitis Pigmentosa Using Longitudinal Deep Learning Analysis of OCT Scans.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Background: Effective crisis management in operating rooms (ORs) is crucial for patient safety. Despite their benefits, adherence to OR crisis checklists is often limited, highlighting the need for innovative solutions. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of augmented reality (AR)-enhanced checklists in improving protocol adherence, compared to traditional paper checklists and no checklist scenarios during simulated OR crises. Methods: This study was a randomized comparative efficacy study comparing the utility of AR checklists, paper checklists, and no checklist scenarios using 4 validated and simulated OR crises scenarios: asystolic cardiac arrest, air embolism, unexplained hypotension/hypoxia, and malignant hyperthermia. The study took place in a simulated OR setting and had applicability to the standard procedures in ORs, critical care units, and urgent care scenarios in the emergency department. To form the 24 OR teams, 50 professionals including 24 anesthesiologists, 24 nurses, 1 surgeon, and 1 scrub nurse from two academic hospitals were included. The primary outcome measured was the failure to adhere (FTA) rate for critical actions during simulated OR crises. Adherence was determined using retrospective video analysis involving 595 key processes evaluated across 24 surgical teams. Interrater reliability was assessed using a Cohen κ. Secondary outcomes included checklist usability and cognitive load, as measured by the low-frequency to high-frequency (LF/HF) ratio of the heart rate variability. Results: The AR checklist group showed a significantly lower FTA rate (mean 15.1%, SD 5.77%) compared to the paper checklist (mean 8.32%, SD 5.65%; Conclusions: These results suggest that AR checklists could offer a viable method for enhancing adherence to critical care protocols. Although, further research is needed to fully assess their impact on clinical outcomes and to address any associated increase in cognitive load.
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.