ArticleJournal of medical extended reality2024
Feasibility, Adoption, and Utility of Augmented Reality in Lumbar Puncture Simulation by Medical Students: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of medical extended reality, 2024. 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.
- User Experience Comparison of a Traditional Mannequin-Based and an Augmented Reality Lumbar Puncture Simulator in Geriatric Medicine Training: Questionnaire Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The acquisition of procedural skills by medical trainees remains challenging, time-consuming, and risky. The use of augmented reality in the clinical setting is increasing because of its growing accessibility and potential to aid medical education and clinical care delivery. Objective: This study investigated the feasibility, adoption, and efficacy of augmented reality (AR)-supported lumbar puncture (LP) simulation for medical student training. Methods: A randomized and controlled approach was used to assess the effect of AR-supported simulation training versus standard simulation training on the number of sticks for successful LP, distance of first puncture from the target, and the time to successful LP. Pre- and post-surveys were used to assess medical student satisfaction with AR-supported LP simulation. Results: Thirty-four third-and fourth-year medical students were equally randomized into a AR-supported or control LP simulation groups. The median number of punctures required for a successful LP was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) in the control group and 1 (IQR 2) in the AR group ( Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in the number of sticks, distance from the target, and the time to successful puncture between the AR and control groups. Significant improvements in confidence levels were reported after simulation training via a survey. Although most of this cohort had no previous exposure to AR, the majority expressed willingness and preference to use AR in the procedural simulation. Future studies would benefit from a multisite design for a larger sample, as well as the use of newer AR technologies.
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.