ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
Augmented Reality and Gamification vs. Traditional Surgical Instrument Training on Knowledge and Skills of Medical Students: A 2×2 Factorial Randomized Study.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Augmented reality (AR) and gamification have shown promise in medical education. This study aimed to examine their combined application in surgical instrument training for medical students. Methods: This 2×2 factorial randomized assignment involved 164 operating room students from two universities. Participants were categorized by university and randomly allocated to four intervention groups: Group A (AR + game-based learning; n = 41), Group B (AR only; n = 41), Group C (game only; n = 41), or Group D (traditional instruction; n = 41). The 3-week intervention comprised one 30-minute session per week. Outcomes included knowledge retention (assessed at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months) and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) performance, evaluating surgical suite recognition, instrument arrangement, instrument use, and time efficiency. Results: Group A (AR + game) showed better knowledge retention, with scores increasing from 44.7 ± 2.2 at baseline to 84.4 ± 2.7 at 1 week and remaining stable at 3 months (71.6 ± 1.9). Group D (traditional instruction) performed worst (56.7 ± 6.8 at 1 week; 48.6 ± 6.7 at 3 months). Total OSCE scores showed a similar trend: Group A scored 86.5 ± 4.3 out of 97, compared with Group D (62.7 ± 6.2). Factorial analysis confirmed significant benefits for AR versus non-AR (knowledge gain: 76.4 ± 9.1 vs. 62.3 ± 8.7; p < 0.001) and game versus non-game interventions (75.7 ± 8.9 vs. 63.0 ± 9.3; p < 0.001). Gender effects were sporadic and explained minimal variance. Conclusions: The integration of AR and gamification appeared to be the most effective approach in this study for improving knowledge retention and procedural proficiency in surgical instrument training. Gamification alone showed stable long-term retention and may serve as a cost-effective alternative when AR integration is not feasible.
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.