Trial reportCell reports. Medicine2026
Real-time AR navigation with dynamic tracking for millimeter-level pulmonary nodule localization: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Cell reports. Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06335563 (Application of Intelligent Augmented Reality Glasses in Assisting the Localization of Small Pulmonary Nodules), which is not on this 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.
Application of Intelligent Augmented Reality Glasses in Assisting the Localization of Small Pulmonary Nodules:A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial
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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise localization of small pulmonary nodules is crucial for surgery. Augmented reality (AR) navigation provides real-time guidance, potentially improving localization efficiency. This open-label randomized controlled trial compares AR-guided localization with conventional computed tomography (CT)-guided localization in 168 participants with peripheral pulmonary nodules ≤2 cm. The primary outcome is localization accuracy; secondary outcomes are success rate, procedural time, radiation dose, insertion attempts, and complications. In the intention-to-treat population, the AR group shows significantly lower localization error than the CT group (4.50 ± 3.07 vs. 6.50 ± 3.54 mm), with shorter procedural time, lower radiation exposure, and fewer needle adjustments. Both groups show high success rates and similar complication rates, with no severe adverse events. AR-guided localization provides noninferior accuracy while reducing radiation exposure and procedural time, supporting an efficient alternative to CT guidance. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06335563).
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.