SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Effectiveness of extended reality in simulation-based ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia training: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUltrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) requires knowledge of anatomy, hand-eye coordination, and safe needling techniques. Extended reality (XR), including augmented reality, virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality, is an emerging simulation modality for UGRA training. We sought to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of XR for UGRA training. SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science®, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to 15 November 2024. We included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series. We categorized outcomes by Kirkpatrick levels and assessed risk of bias. PRINCIPAL
findingsFrom 1,703 articles, we included seven studies (N = 137 participants). Four studies reported participant reactions. One trial (n = 29) found higher self-confidence in anatomical landmark identification and procedural performance (P < 0.001). One study assessed knowledge, reporting a score increase (P < 0.001). Augmented reality head-mounted display studies found shorter procedure times (10 vs 7 sec; P = 0.03 and 18 vs 12 sec; P = 0.002), higher needle visibility (34% vs 57%; P < 0.001 and 20% vs 38%; P = 0.001), and fewer head movements (P = 0.02). Immersive VR trials found no between-group differences in ratings or error scores (mean difference, -3.3; 95% confidence interval, -12.7 to 6.1; P = 0.51). The only randomized controlled trial was a pilot study that was terminated early and was underpowered for outcomes. We found substantial variability in XR definition, study design, methodologic rigour, and study quality.
conclusionsThe current evidence does not conclusively support widespread adoption of XR for UGRA training, owing to heterogeneity, small samples, and underpowered studies. Currently, XR remains at an early and experimental stage in development. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42023424194 ); first submitted 18 May 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42547756What 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.